What privacy advocates? You either have strong encryption or none. There is no in between.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
FBI Director Christopher Wray on Encryption: We Can't Have an 'Entirely Unfettered Space Beyond the Reach of Law Enforcement'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Missing the point, even with a search warrant you can't get in the phone....Are you even reading anything or just posting nonsense.
Wasn't Comey the last idiot spouting this omnipotent state nonsense?
If the FBI wants what is on people's phones, then they should change the laws. The problem is that we have a constitutional right to not incriminate ourselves. The FBI is trying to subvert the constitution by saying that you can't keep incriminating information away from their view.
I'm sure their jobs would be easier if they could torture confessions out of people or threaten their families if they didn't give up incriminating information, but that's not the country that we live in.
I'm sure their jobs would be easier if they could torture confessions out of people or threaten their families if they didn't give up incriminating information, but that's not the country that we live in.
This is an issue that will continue to come up in all sorts of ways. How much freedom should we give up for public safety?
If you have an opinion about it, then vote for people who agree with you. The government works for the people, so it's up to all of us to decide on the appropriate limits of government reach.
If you have an opinion about it, then vote for people who agree with you. The government works for the people, so it's up to all of us to decide on the appropriate limits of government reach.
The cat is already way, way, out of the bag. Source code for all sorts of strong encryption has been available for decades. If you try to take secure encryption away from everyone ("well, we need to have a backdoor"), then the supposed bad guys will just download the source for, say, Signal, compile it themselves, and start using that - result: FBI can spy (via encryption backdoors) on the general public but still can't spy (via encryption backdoors) on the bad guys.
As @Porco has noted, at best, they don't understand this; at worst, they want more ability to scan all conversations for things they think might indicate bad behavior.
As @Porco has noted, at best, they don't understand this; at worst, they want more ability to scan all conversations for things they think might indicate bad behavior.
It is impossible to outlaw encryption. It is only possible outlaw convenient encryption. The algorithms for unbreakable encryption fit on a page and can be derived in a day by undergraduate math students. Anyone who wants it can easily implement it themselves with a fairly low degree of technical skills. Criminals who truly care about secrecy will still use it, so making it hard to use only hurts the masses who will lose their protection from casual snooping.
Electronic digital communications between private individuals span networks, servers and devices that cross multiple boundaries in both physical, technical, political and religious domains. What is acceptable and even the law in state A may be the opposite in state B - and by referencing 'state' here I mean nation states, not just the states that make up the US or Germany for example.
We live as a species perhaps for the first time ever, in a time when it is entirely possible, even relatively easy and convenient, to encrypt messages in ways that simply cannot be recovered, even with the force of a search warrant, properly authorized and duly served.
This represents a problem for law enforcement agencies that is a level up from what they had and have. All at a time when the fundamental nature of waging conflict has changed - it used to be between identifiable adversaries such as nation states - something that could be seen, targeted and attacked with some good chance of achieving desired outcomes for the attacker for example.
Many nations have legal protections for citizens' freedoms including personal privacy, right to not self-incriminate and so on - and these laws have been established because really bad things happened in their absence.
For law enforcement agencies to demand that there not be unfettered access to total privacy simply reflects an old-paradigm response to a new-paradigm problem. It's unlikely to be terribly helpful. Law enforcement agencies, more so in some countries than others perhaps, need to build a relationship with the citizenry that establishes or re-establishes mutual trust and co-operation, and results in a genuine partnership - just as the law enforcement agencies are executing some level of oversight on the citizenry, so the citizenry has a role in reciprocating. I see too many countries that arguably are falling back away from this kind of situation, falling back more on the 'force' aspect of law enforcement than on genuine partnership... behaviors & mindsets that are actually undermining trust and co-operation.
We live as a species perhaps for the first time ever, in a time when it is entirely possible, even relatively easy and convenient, to encrypt messages in ways that simply cannot be recovered, even with the force of a search warrant, properly authorized and duly served.
This represents a problem for law enforcement agencies that is a level up from what they had and have. All at a time when the fundamental nature of waging conflict has changed - it used to be between identifiable adversaries such as nation states - something that could be seen, targeted and attacked with some good chance of achieving desired outcomes for the attacker for example.
Many nations have legal protections for citizens' freedoms including personal privacy, right to not self-incriminate and so on - and these laws have been established because really bad things happened in their absence.
For law enforcement agencies to demand that there not be unfettered access to total privacy simply reflects an old-paradigm response to a new-paradigm problem. It's unlikely to be terribly helpful. Law enforcement agencies, more so in some countries than others perhaps, need to build a relationship with the citizenry that establishes or re-establishes mutual trust and co-operation, and results in a genuine partnership - just as the law enforcement agencies are executing some level of oversight on the citizenry, so the citizenry has a role in reciprocating. I see too many countries that arguably are falling back away from this kind of situation, falling back more on the 'force' aspect of law enforcement than on genuine partnership... behaviors & mindsets that are actually undermining trust and co-operation.
His tears are delicious. I love it!
Rijndael is one of the best thing that happened to humanity.
Rijndael is one of the best thing that happened to humanity.
Yes. Freedom is dangerous to authoritarian regimes.
Yep it is funny.
But gov surveillance is evil while Private companies that have lobbyists are fine.
Facebook, Google, Amazon do it to get more $$$$$, which then lines politicians/lobbyists pockets.
Yep, and how comfortable would you be with him having a back door to your data? The way the FBI is now, they may be the least trustworthy entity on the planet.
Last edited:
its funny that people think theyre truly protected.If Apple ever gives up their encryption policy I'm switching to Android
(well that'll save me a lot of money too)
But with one you are giving permission and the other you didn't. Did you click on "accept"?
Dear Director Wray,
First, please read the NYT story linked below about how the NSA's famed "cyber arsenal" was hacked, resulting in criminals gaining access to and weaponizing the "tools of law enforcement" against innocent people and businesses worldwide, then tell me exactly WHY ANYONE should trust any government agency with their data?
If the NSA can be hacked, how can we trust the FBI or any other agency to keep encryption keys safe? For that matter, forget hacks by non-governmental employees. Are YOU willing to swear under penalty of perjury that all current and former FBI, NSA, CIA, and DNI employees (including those caught lying under oath to Congress) are trustworthy and would never abuse the ability to access private data for personal / political reasons?
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/12/us/nsa-shadow-brokers.html
First, please read the NYT story linked below about how the NSA's famed "cyber arsenal" was hacked, resulting in criminals gaining access to and weaponizing the "tools of law enforcement" against innocent people and businesses worldwide, then tell me exactly WHY ANYONE should trust any government agency with their data?
If the NSA can be hacked, how can we trust the FBI or any other agency to keep encryption keys safe? For that matter, forget hacks by non-governmental employees. Are YOU willing to swear under penalty of perjury that all current and former FBI, NSA, CIA, and DNI employees (including those caught lying under oath to Congress) are trustworthy and would never abuse the ability to access private data for personal / political reasons?
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/12/us/nsa-shadow-brokers.html
The main problem is that if the government can get in, so can many, many black hat hackers. For every great white hat on the government's payroll, there are hundreds of excellent black hats. Not even to mention that it's breaking both the Fourth and the Fifth to have devices with little or nothing in the way of the government.
And our president was a reality tv “star” (person?)...not too far of a leap, is it?I personally think that we should allow Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez to determine all our privacy concerns.
After all, she was a qualified bartender right?
So you would be willing to give up liberty for these companies to make more money .
These companies then sell your data to the FBI / Gov / Russia / China....Would that be ok then ?
Your tax dollars are used to buy info about you?
These companies then line up the politician , create hearing to talk about security , create FBI requests , while you post more Facebook posts on the Evil of surveillance and loss of liberty ?
Weird isn’t it...
Can anyone here say with 100% certainty that USA private companies does not sell its data to 3rd parties?
Facebook,Amazon,Google, T Mobile, Verizon, Sears .........
Why does the Government think it has a right to my device at all, in any situation? A phone is a deeply personal object, one could argue an extension of one-self. You have the right not to incriminate yourself. I'd like to see Apple have something that protects users even more, by not storing anything on the phone at all, and everything can be fully encrypted in the cloud and only your personal ID, fingerprint, retina, password combination can unlock it.