FBI Director James Comey expresses deep concern about the new encryption technologies that Apple had built into the release of iOS 8 and Google will implement with the forthcoming launch of Android L. These new encryption methods are designed to keep data safe and for tech companies to avoid the uncomfortable position of being compelled to hand over private personal data to law enforcement officials. However, Comey says that this move could thwart the fight and prevention of crime.
While many could be sympathetic to Comey's pleas that in certain situations, a greater good could occur if law enforcement officials could compel Apple and Google to decypt your iPhone or Android device, which Comey says, could help in child kidnapping cases.
I like and believe very much that we should have to obtain a warrant from an independent judge to be able to take the content of anyone's closet or their smart phone. The notion that someone would market a closet that could never be opened -- even if it involves a case involving a child kidnapper and a court order -- to me does not make any sense.
However, it becomes a slippery slope as to what alleged crimes would result in a court order compelling Apple, Google, and other tech companies to hand over the keys to decrypt mobile devices. The point of encryption is for users to keep the only set of keys, not for companies to keep a spare.
Comey argues that Apple and Google are marketing their new standards in a way that makes people feel above the law:
Google is marketing their Android the same way: Buy our phone and law-enforcement, even with legal process, can never get access to it.
What do you make of Comey's argument? Is there a hard line on privacy such that it could thwart the solving of crimes? Perhaps, with the NSA scandal, the government had played the role of the boy who cried wolf.
Source: Huffington Post
Reader comments
FBI wants you to lock up data, but allow tech companies to keep the keys
Regarding Comey's closet argument. I agree the closet should be opened with a court order....the problem is that the Feds have opened and looked in every closet in the world, without a court order, and without our knowledge.
Am I the only one getting increasingly annoyed by the trope of ending all these articles with questions designed to produce more comments? Look, guys, I know you live and die by page views. But building these "thought-provoking" (yes, I'm deliberately using scare quotes here) into every single article is a bit ridiculous.
Agree! We come here to read, but get fluffed articles and questions in return. Time to move on!
I have to agree. I don't mind the government getting into people's phones if it can save a life or catch someone who took a life. I have nothing to hide, if anyone wants to raid my phone and history they're welcome to do so.
Sent from the iMore App
Ok, so post screen shots of your contacts, emails, and texts then.
Whether or not you have anything to hide is irrelevant. One of the basic human needs is to have a sense of privacy, and to know that there are certain aspects of our lives that we alone have control over.
Watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc
It's about time the people got just a tiny bit of their freedom back. Maybe if the government weren't spying and the police weren't so corrupt there wouldn't be so much public support for this encryption. Good for Apple and Google for finally doing something right.
He's using the example of 'child-kidnapping' in an attempt to sway public opinion, it would be more telling if we could actually see a breakdown of information requests that shows the nature of the different reasons for these requests. I'd bet dollars-to-donuts a very low percentage had anything to do with child endangerment...
Wonder what is so different now that they need your keys.
They can still tap your phone and listen to your call and voice mail.
They can get your logs from your ISP.
They can still read your email from google or from any other provider.
They can also see all of your credit card history. And they already have your thumb print from the DMV. So please stay out of my phone.
--Tim
Sent from the iMore App
I agree that privacy on phones probably has little to do with consumers who desire to be above the law. He may perceive the end result as such but I doubt consumers are even thinking about the implications for law enforcement. They are thinking about protecting their personal information which seems pretty reasonable. I don't want the NSA in my personal info either without due process, nor the FBI or anyone else. But, there are very real costs to allowing all citizens, including those that intend to harm vulnerable people, the ability to completely and forever prevent access to potentially critical information on their electronic devices. People keep commenting that they should get a warrant. But, the legal system will not permit law enforcement to legally man-handle you into putting your fingerprint on the Touch ID or giving up a passcode. Reasonable cause would allow them to search your home with a warrant which could reveal evidence that leads to prosecution. No such parallel exists with an electronic device, the access to which is controlled completely and totally by the user. The info remains inaccessible, prevents a case from being made and no action can be taken. There are always risks and benefits no matter where you draw the line between security and personal liberty. Much of the reactionary comments here seem to suggest many people are simply unaware or do not care about this reality.
No, we are not unaware and we care a great deal – more than you do I would wager. It's just that we draw the line MUCH closer to protecting our own privacy than to some perceived sense of security.
Given that many of the comments don't discuss the security of others, but seem to focus on the rights to privacy each individual perceives themselves to have, I'm not clear how you know that "we are not unaware and we care a great deal" as you seem to be indicating some knowledge of the collective beliefs of individuals responding to this article, that is neither stated nor implied in their comments, which seem difficult to believe.
Why does the FBI director speak as if the government has the right to legally require that encryption on the phones we own be breakable on demand? Is his agency subject to a different constitution from ours?
Yeah Comey but we don't want your paws having access to our information. Get your warrant.
Sent from the iMore App
If tech companies don't allow government access to our phones, the terrorists win.
You're being facetious right?
Sent from the iMore App
I disagree with Comey's spin that privacy features make people feel that they're above the law.
This development is plain and simply a logical market response to overreaching and abuse of power by the NSA and others who can't resist invading the privacy of citizens if they have the ability to do so..
Isn't that scary? The head of the FBI saying that asserting your right to privacy is equivalent to trying to be above the law? Talk about total absence of self-awareness about what your statements reveal.
Exactly!
There is nothing that prevents criminals from hacking into Apple and others to grab all of the keys. That's the whole freaking point, the keys should only be in the hands of customers and nobody else.
You want the keys, get a search warrant to compel us to give up the key. If we refuse, well, that's contempt of court and we can be in jail indefinitely. That's how it works.
Perfectly stated!
Sent from the iMore App
If this app had an up-vote button, I would +1 you!
Sent from the iMore App
Here's what I think of the FBI: F*** Y**
So Comey thinks we should be able to encrypt our data (tho he really doesn't want us to) but we are all supposed to let (be forced) to allow Apple, Google, MS, et al, retain the second set of keys. But really Comey doesn't want them to hold the keys either. Comey wants himself, and the rest of the government, to be the ones who are actually holding the spare keys. Because they are going to protect us from ourselves and each other.
All this in spite of the facts they've proven over and over how unworthy of trust they really are, and how little they actually ever accomplish.
Sent from the iMore App
Very well said!!!!
Sent from the iMore App
Director Comey, may I remind you that you head the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Its not the bureau of crime "prevention". You don't need unlimited access to everyone's personal data to adequately perform your duties.
I can see it now "I have a warrant for my arrest by the federal government bc I refused to place my finger on the touchid."
Hypocrites
Sent from the iMore App
Yeah, no, the government already has enough access to me and mine.
The benefit to society of having our devices be as secure as possible against government access is infinitely more important than getting in to a supposed criminal's phone with a warrant.
James Comey is either an actual idiot, or is pretending to be one.
"Infinitely more important"?? You might feel differently if it were your loved one that were harmed, in danger or missing. While the issue of child kidnapping he references represents a smaller segment of society, they are the most vulnerable among us. In addition, most of us are less than a few degrees of separation from the exact issue Comey is talking about. I find that people who exclusively espouse their personal liberties without any consideration of the potential costs involved in this extreme position are generally people that have never been in a position to deal with or defend against those involved in deliberate acts of harm against others.
You're making the mistake of not looking at this at a policy level. Sure, you can ALWAYS point to a specific hypothetical situation where one would possibly be okay giving up some privacy (usually someone else's, not their own) in return for making it easier for the police to investigate. That's a small-minded way to evaluate a policy, and Comey knows it. Comey also knows that it pulls at peoples' emotions (as it did with you), and gets people to think irrationally.
Yes, if one of my children or my wife were "harmed, in danger, or missing", and accessing their abductor's phone would help, I would be very sad/upset/mad if that phone was encrypted to the point that the police could not access it. HOWEVER, that hypothetical situation IN NO WAY changes my view. Thinking that way is narrow, weak, and selfish.
Exactly, you know they have lost the argument when they pull the "For the children" response. I'll be glad to have my information out of government hands.
Once they have a subpoena then that's a different issue.
Posted via the iMore App for Android
Yes, but even WITH a subpoena or warrant, I don't want the government to be able to go crying to Apple/Google/whoever and say: "Will you please decrypt this data for us?". In my opinion, it's not very good encryption if the government (or anyone for that matter) can effectively go over my head if they want to get the data decrypted.
James Comey and the FBI are asking private companies to make WEAKER encryption so that it makes their job easier.
I keep my key thanks.
Sent from the iMore App
If there is a court order, wouldn't the owner of the phone be forced into unlocking the content?
Sent from the iMore App
I would guess with a fingerprint, yes, but with a password, no.
The short answer is yes. The complicated answer is that the court has not definitely answered if this is a 5th amendment issue.
Right now, if you refuse to comply with the search warrant, you will be found contempt of the court and until you comply, you can be placed in jail definitely or fined instead.