Holder wants backdoor to iOS8. Its for the children

[Genx87]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...es-to-leave-device-backdoors-open-for-police/

Privacy means nothing to this douchelord.

 

[The Merg]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...es-to-leave-device-backdoors-open-for-police/



Privacy means nothing to this douchelord.

Not even close. Currently, with a valid search warrant, an iPhone can be sent to Apple and Apple will pull the information requested in the search warrant from the phone. With iOS8, the phone cannot be searched even with a valid search warrant. So, if there is incriminating evidence on the phone, it can never be accessed unless the owner opts to give up their passcode.

So that pedophile that uses their iPhone to take pictures or video might very well get away with their crime as the police would not be able to obtain the incriminating photos/videos even if they have probable cause to search the phone.

- Merg

 

[The Merg]

What makes the above comment even funnier is that Holder is not very pro-police to begin with and this point of view of allowing access to the device for law enforcement would be considered to be a conservative point of view from a very liberal Attorney General.

- Merg

 

[MrColin]

Not even close. Currently, with a valid search warrant, an iPhone can be sent to Apple and Apple will pull the information requested in the search warrant from the phone. With iOS8, the phone cannot be searched even with a valid search warrant. So, if there is incriminating evidence on the phone, it can never be accessed unless the owner opts to give up their passcode.

So that pedophile that uses their iPhone to take pictures or video might very well get away with their crime as the police would not be able to obtain the incriminating photos/videos even if they have probable cause to search the phone.

- Merg

The convenience of law enforcement does not trump our rights IMO.

There is plenty of crime to fight without intrusion on every man woman and child that has a phone.

 

[Double Trouble]

The convenience of law enforcement does not trump our rights IMO.

There is plenty of crime to fight without intrusion on every man woman and child that has a phone.

This. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Just like the price of freedom of speech is having to accept jackasses spewing vile speech, the price of privacy is accepting that there are going to be situations where you can't get to the data that someone has stored.

Whenever they start talking about terrorism, child porn and kidnapping as reasons to allow an intrusion in privacy, you know the hype machine is on and you should be even more skeptical of the claims.

Of course, there's the possibility that there are already back doors, but the loud complaining by holder and other govt officials is a smokescreen to make it seem like there aren't </conspiracy shifty eyes>

 

[The Merg]

The convenience of law enforcement does not trump our rights IMO.

There is plenty of crime to fight without intrusion on every man woman and child that has a phone.

It's not convenience and it is not trumping your rights. The Constitution and the courts have ruled that a search is valid with a search warrant. Holder is just asking that law enforcement have a way to obtain the evidence that is on the phone when that search warrant has been issued.

- Merg

 

[The Merg]

This. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Just like the price of freedom of speech is having to accept jackasses spewing vile speech, the price of privacy is accepting that there are going to be situations where you can't get to the data that someone has stored.

Whenever they start talking about terrorism, child porn and kidnapping as reasons to allow an intrusion in privacy, you know the hype machine is on and you should be even more skeptical of the claims.

Of course, there's the possibility that there are already back doors, but the loud complaining by holder and other govt officials is a smokescreen to make it seem like there aren't </conspiracy shifty eyes>

Nothing extra is being asked for here. It's not like a cop is going to take your phone and just start going through it. The point is that if a search warrant has been executed for the phone as it contains evidence of a crime, there should be a way to get that evidence from the phone.

Apple's new security essentially closes the back door that was available (only Apple had access to the back door previously). If there really was backdoor available still, Holder wouldn't need to say anything as law enforcement could continue to quietly get the information they need.

- Merg

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Mr. Civil Rights? This isn't possible!

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Nothing extra is being asked for here. It's not like a cop is going to take your phone and just start going through it. The point is that if a search warrant has been executed for the phone as it contains evidence of a crime, there should be a way to get that evidence from the phone.

Apple's new security essentially closes the back door that was available (only Apple had access to the back door previously). If there really was backdoor available still, Holder wouldn't need to say anything as law enforcement could continue to quietly get the information they need.

- Merg

You're doing it wrong. Suspend all rational thought and embrace the rage. Let the rage flow through you.

 

[Paratus]

It's not convenience and it is not trumping your rights. The Constitution and the courts have ruled that a search is valid with a search warrant. Holder is just asking that law enforcement have a way to obtain the evidence that is on the phone when that search warrant has been issued.

- Merg

The police either already have a legal method to recover the data or they don't.
With a valid search warrant I believe the defendant can be held in contempt of court until they provide access.

On the other hand if it's illegal to force a defendant to provide access to their phone I don't see how a backdoor suddenly makes it legal.

So either way the police are allowed to do the things they are allowed without compromising our device security.

 

[The Merg]

The police either already have a legal method to recover the data or they don't.
With a valid search warrant I believe the defendant can be held in contempt of court until they provide access.

On the other hand if it's illegal to force a defendant to provide access to their phone I don't see how a backdoor suddenly makes it legal.

So either way the police are allowed to do the things they are allowed without compromising our device security.

The search warrant is on the phone and not the person. Basically, if you have a search warrant to find the phone or seize it to begin with, that does not give you permission to then search the phone. In order to have a search warrant to search a phone, law enforcement has to already have the phone in their possession. The defendant cannot be held responsible for not allowing access to the information on the phone.

The idea of it being illegal to force the defendant to provide access is not valid as they don't need to provide the code in any circumstance. The backdoor is not suddenly making something legal. If the backdoor is there, the police can use it to access the phone with a valid search warrant. If they don't have a search warrant, they can't access the phone (and if they do access it without the search warrant anything they find is not admissable). Without this backdoor, the police are prevented from executing a lawful search warrant.

- Merg

 

[fskimospy]

This. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Just like the price of freedom of speech is having to accept jackasses spewing vile speech, the price of privacy is accepting that there are going to be situations where you can't get to the data that someone has stored.

Whenever they start talking about terrorism, child porn and kidnapping as reasons to allow an intrusion in privacy, you know the hype machine is on and you should be even more skeptical of the claims.

Of course, there's the possibility that there are already back doors, but the loud complaining by holder and other govt officials is a smokescreen to make it seem like there aren't </conspiracy shifty eyes>

You have no right against a search authorized by a legal warrant. Literally none. Nor should you.

The fourth amendment protects against unreasonable searches, not all searches. How do we determine if a search is reasonable? Warrants.

 

[heymrdj]

We should have the right to have devices with no backdoors. I don't give a damn about the children. We may need these devices one day to deal with the government that "protects" us.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

The search warrant is on the phone and not the person. Basically, if you have a search warrant to find the phone or seize it to begin with, that does not give you permission to then search the phone. In order to have a search warrant to search a phone, law enforcement has to already have the phone in their possession. The defendant cannot be held responsible for not allowing access to the information on the phone.

The idea of it being illegal to force the defendant to provide access is not valid as they don't need to provide the code in any circumstance. The backdoor is not suddenly making something legal. If the backdoor is there, the police can use it to access the phone with a valid search warrant. If they don't have a search warrant, they can't access the phone (and if they do access it without the search warrant anything they find is not admissable). Without this backdoor, the police are prevented from executing a lawful search warrant.

- Merg

Since this does not cover nsa actions it's of little comfort.

 

[Genx87]

Not even close. Currently, with a valid search warrant, an iPhone can be sent to Apple and Apple will pull the information requested in the search warrant from the phone. With iOS8, the phone cannot be searched even with a valid search warrant. So, if there is incriminating evidence on the phone, it can never be accessed unless the owner opts to give up their passcode.

So that pedophile that uses their iPhone to take pictures or video might very well get away with their crime as the police would not be able to obtain the incriminating photos/videos even if they have probable cause to search the phone.

- Merg

Eh I dont think that is what Holder is alluding to. He is complaining the police wont have easy access to our phones. The article mentions access to the phone even when they have a warrant. Implying access to the phone without a warrant.

If the police get a warrant. Im pretty sure the user of that phone will be held in contempt of court if they dont provide a passcode to the phone.

 

[fskimospy]

Eh I dont think that is what Holder is alluding to. He is complaining the police wont have easy access to our phones. The article mentions access to the phone even when they have a warrant. Implying access to the phone without a warrant.

If the police get a warrant. Im pretty sure the user of that phone will be held in contempt of court if they dont provide a passcode to the phone.

There has been no ruling on this. Some courts have said that's ok, others have said that violates the 5th amendment. I firmly believe it does.

 

[Genx87]

There has been no ruling on this. Some courts have said that's ok, others have said that violates the 5th amendment. I firmly believe it does.

I did wonder about the 5th. Well I guess if a court allows the 5th. Law enforcement should build a stronger case than one cell phone.

 

[Jaskalas]

I wonder what the celebrities who got hacked think of this request to backdoor their phones.

Security holes / exploits are unacceptable.

 

[fskimospy]

I did wonder about the 5th. Well I guess if a court allows the 5th. Law enforcement should build a stronger case than one cell phone.

The case is the case, you can't always depend on it. I am perfectly ok with law enforcement having access to the contents of someone's phone so long as it is the result of a properly issued warrant.

 

[momeNt]

Since this does not cover nsa actions it's of little comfort.

Since

NSA is an extra-constitutional agency designed at protecting the nation itself. Law enforcement officials like Holder are trying to protect the children.

Constitution - protects people and children, mainly children.

NSA - protects nation, but not citizens.

 

[MrPickins]

I wonder what the celebrities who got hacked think of this request to backdoor their phones.

Security holes / exploits are unacceptable.

So much this.

Holes get used and exploits get exploited.

 

[PokerGuy]

Anything "for the children" raises immediate red flags. Backdoors are a bad idea and will inevitably be exploited, either by criminals or overzealous lawyers/prosecutors. You should be able to secure your data such that nobody can gain access to it but you.

 

[Zodiark1593]

Nothing extra is being asked for here. It's not like a cop is going to take your phone and just start going through it. The point is that if a search warrant has been executed for the phone as it contains evidence of a crime, there should be a way to get that evidence from the phone.

Apple's new security essentially closes the back door that was available (only Apple had access to the back door previously). If there really was backdoor available still, Holder wouldn't need to say anything as law enforcement could continue to quietly get the information they need.

- Merg

Technically speaking, the sought data is still there. It would just be in a different language via a math algorithm. Law enforcement is more than welcome to decipher it with their own resources.

 

[master_shake_]

You have no right against a search authorized by a legal warrant. Literally none. Nor should you.

The fourth amendment protects against unreasonable searches, not all searches. How do we determine if a search is reasonable? Warrants.

just see how fruitless their searches are when EVERYTHING is encrypted.

 

[gevorg]

related: Why We Should Encrypt Everyone&#8217;s Email