US says no to encryption law - for now

Discussion in 'privacy general' started by lotuseclat79, Oct 9, 2015.

  1. lotuseclat79

    lotuseclat79 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2005
    Posts:
    5,089
  2. J_L

    J_L Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2009
    Posts:
    8,516
    If they did, I wonder how bad the backlash will be...
     
  3. Rolo42

    Rolo42 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2012
    Posts:
    569
    Location:
    USA
    "It's hard" is not an argument to circumvent due process. If they need to "tap" encrypted communications, the legal process should be no different than with a POTS phone. Judges are appointed to make those decisions, not law enforcement.
     
  4. Palancar

    Palancar Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2011
    Posts:
    1,591
    [thumbsup] !!
     
  5. hawki

    hawki Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2008
    Posts:
    1,954
    Location:
    DC Metro Area
    "Federal judge stokes debate about data encryption

    A federal judge in New York is expanding to the courts the hot debate over whether tech companies should be forced to find ways to unlock encrypted smartphones and other devices for law enforcement.

    In an unusual move, Magistrate Judge James Orenstein of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York released an order Friday that suggests he would not issue a government-sought order to compel the tech giant Apple to decrypt a customer’s device..........."

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...5da20e-6f6f-11e5-9bfe-e59f5e244f92_story.html
     
  6. zapjb

    zapjb Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2005
    Posts:
    3,513
    Location:
    USA - Back in a real State in time for a real Pres
    Most everybody in the US [post-facebook] rolls over like submissive dogs.
     
  7. Rolo42

    Rolo42 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2012
    Posts:
    569
    Location:
    USA
    No they dont!

    They roll over and complain about it! :argh:


    Here's a thought:

    If the state were to compel me to decrypt my device, could I refuse under the 5th amendment?

    If so, would compelling corporations to decrypt my device be a way to circumvent the 5th amendment?
     
    Last edited: Oct 10, 2015
  8. zapjb

    zapjb Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2005
    Posts:
    3,513
    Location:
    USA - Back in a real State in time for a real Pres
    All in flux. But they've jailed people for not decrypting their hardware. So bring a toothbrush just in case.
     
  9. driekus

    driekus Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2014
    Posts:
    489
    I think they realized that trying to implement this would be a political minefield.
    They would alienate the right wing libertarian contingent over the potentially unconstitutional over reach. They would also feel the wrath of the left wing pro privacy groups. To compound the issue I am sure that Google, Facebook. etc are all strong campaign contributors.
    In this case I am thankful for the weakness of politicians.

    They also probably realized that in nearly every case they dont really need all the backdoors. They have enough access through their existing programs.
     
  10. lotuseclat79

    lotuseclat79 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2005
    Posts:
    5,089
    Lawful Hacking After the Encryption Debate.

    -- Tom
     
  11. deBoetie

    deBoetie Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2013
    Posts:
    1,147
    Location:
    UK
    The Home Office in the UK has already proposed draft guidelines which regulate what they coyly call "equipment interference".
    https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa..._Practice_on_Interception_and_Equipmen....pdf
    Very poor guidelines, and attempting to introduce practices which are almost certainly unlawful, at least in part, under the guise of guidelines (no debate, no lawmaking). One of the obvious causes of legal concern is that the hacking tools necessarily allow/encourage alteration of the target system, including planting files etc. It's hard to see how a court could seriously consider this as evidentially safe (it's not).
    The ex-head of MI5 also threatened that, if mass surveillance were curbed significantly, then they'd have to expand their hacking operations.
     
Loading...