FBI director James Comey on 60 Minutes

[quade 4]

Quote

FBI Director Says Apple and Google Are Putting Their Customers 'Beyond The Law'

FBI director James Comey really likes car analogies. Last week, in the first of a two-part interview on 60 Minutes, he called the Internet the “most dangerous parking lot imaginable,” meaning, I think, that you should be prepared to Taser any menacing email attachment that sneaks up behind you. On Sunday night, in his second appearance, he addressed Apple AAPL +0.17% and Google GOOGL -0.36% selling phones that can only be unlocked by their customers’ pin codes. Comey compared the tech giants selling phones with encrypted data that can’t be unlocked with a court order to a car dealer selling “cars with trunks that couldn’t ever be opened by law enforcement.”

Source:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2014/10/13/fbi-director-says-apple-and-google-are-putting-their-customers-beyond-the-law/

No. What Apple and Google (well not Google yet) are doing is completely within the law. It is the FBI/NSA/Local Cops who wish to be "beyond the law" and violate 4th Amendment rights. If they want legal access to my private life, they should get a law passed by Congress, signed by the President, and Constitutionally approved by the Supreme Court.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[CygnusX-1 43]

quade

No. What Apple and Google (well not Google yet) are doing is completely within the law. It is the FBI/NSA/Local Cops who wish to be "beyond the law" and violate 4th Amendment rights. If they want legal access to my private life, they should get a law passed by Congress, signed by the President, and Constitutionally approved by the Supreme Court.

Actually what James was saying is that after they get the court order then they could not break into your car, rummage around looking for drugs, used condoms, illegal gambling receipts, etc. and then lock up your vehicle like they were never there.

I'm perfectly fine with that, BTW. If they want to see what is on my phone, let them get a warrant and physically take the phone. Don't try and sneak in through the back door like a common burglar.

[quade 4]

The bigger issue here is we are heading for a period in time where we will begin to merge with technology. To a certain extent we already have; it's simply easier to keep the data outside of the body than in right this moment.

What happens when all of this stuff is implanted?

Will "the government" have the right to get a warrant and root around inside the implants in your skull? Sure this is still maybe 100 years away (maybe less), but ultimately I believe the data on your cell phone right now should have the same rights as what's inside your head including an extension of your right to not testify against yourself.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[DanG 1]

It sounds like you are saying that all electronic records, by dint of their being electronic and not physical, should be outside the scope of warrants. I think that's a bit extreme. If I write out a to-do list on how I'm going to kill my wife, it should enjoy the same status whether it is on paper, or on my phone. The police should require a warrant to access it, but I can't be forced to read it to them if I wrote it in code.

- Dan G

[quade 4]

DanG

It sounds like you are saying that all electronic records, by dint of their being electronic and not physical, should be outside the scope of warrants. I think that's a bit extreme. If I write out a to-do list on how I'm going to kill my wife, it should enjoy the same status whether it is on paper, or on my phone. The police should require a warrant to access it, but I can't be forced to read it to them if I wrote it in code.

Nope. What I'm saying is your phone is a special collection of data. It's not just the note to kill your wife on it, but it's also your entire life; calendar, contacts, credit cards...

The scope of what is on your cell phone is what makes it special. It's not just "A" piece of data. In many people's cases, it's the entire nexus of their lives.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[GeorgiaDon 380]

quade

***It sounds like you are saying that all electronic records, by dint of their being electronic and not physical, should be outside the scope of warrants. I think that's a bit extreme. If I write out a to-do list on how I'm going to kill my wife, it should enjoy the same status whether it is on paper, or on my phone. The police should require a warrant to access it, but I can't be forced to read it to them if I wrote it in code.

Nope. What I'm saying is your phone is a special collection of data. It's not just the note to kill your wife on it, but it's also your entire life; calendar, contacts, credit cards...

The scope of what is on your cell phone is what makes it special. It's not just "A" piece of data. In many people's cases, it's the entire nexus of their lives.Much of my "life" is inside my house: photos, calendar, collections, etc. By your logic law enforcement should never, under any circumstances, be able to execute a warrant to search my house, even if they have excellent and extensive probable cause.

People choose to put a lot of information on their phone. I don't see how "I chose to put a lot of private info on this device" is a valid argument to say that device should automatically be beyond the scope of law enforcement to examine.

The curmudgeon in me is also compelled to say that if your phone is the entire nexus of your life there is something wrong. I'm reminded of my son in law, who is unapologetic about admitting he would rather play a video game about any sport you care to name than to actually play the sport, as the video game won't make him sweat or risk injury.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[wmw999 2,589]

While I tend to agree that the phone is just another device, that can be subpoena'd but not forced to decode, I also think this is the perfect time to start thinking about the likely eventuality of implantable memory devices. Because they are coming, and they are much closer to a line that used to be really broad, but is getting finer.

If someone has a Day Planner; the kind that also holds everything, it's eminently subject to subpoena, even if the guy keeps his phone book, list of userids and passwords, and medical records in it.

Just remember that just because the police officer asks for your phone, you don't have to give it to him. And yes, do have a code, fingerprint, or whatever to unlock it.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[kelpdiver 2]

GeorgiaDon

People choose to put a lot of information on their phone. I don't see how "I chose to put a lot of private info on this device" is a valid argument to say that device should automatically be beyond the scope of law enforcement to examine.

They can examine it. I just don't have to help them. And nor does Google/Apple.

If Law Enforcement doesn't like it, they should look in the mirror for the culprit.
They're the assholes that started using any sort of stop as an opportunity to peruse people's phones. They're the ones that got and abused the ability to subpeoena records from companies while forbidding them from telling the customers it occurred. When the NSA stuff poured out last year, companies like Google/Apple/Facebook looked like total assholes for lying about how much they helped the Feds, even though they had no choice but to lie.

So now they're solving the problem for themselves and their customers.

[quade 4]

GeorgiaDon

People choose to put a lot of information on their phone. I don't see how "I chose to put a lot of private info on this device" is a valid argument to say that device should automatically be beyond the scope of law enforcement to examine.

Let's say the cops come knocking on your door with a warrant to search your home for drugs. Let's say in the basement of your house you had a safe which contained your valuables. Lets assume for a minute the safe is locked, cemented, and welded to the foundation of the house. There are numerous reasons for people to do this. Does a search warrant of your home compel you to open that safe so the valuables within it are subject to civil forfeiture?

Quick, you have 60 seconds to answer this question without looking up the answer on the internet (because the cops aren't going to let you do that).

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[GeorgiaDon 380]

Quote

They can examine it. I just don't have to help them.

I agree.

Quote

If Law Enforcement doesn't like it, they should look in the mirror for the culprit.
They're the assholes that started using any sort of stop as an opportunity to peruse people's phones.

I also agree.

I was completely in agreement with the court decision that police need a warrant to look at the contents of your phone.

My issue was just with the argument "I keep a lot of stuff there so law enforcement should, as a matter of principle, never be able to get a warrant." That's not the same as saying I have to help them, for example by providing pin numbers or passwords, as that gets into self-incrimination territory.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[GeorgiaDon 380]

Quote

Let's say the cops come knocking on your door with a warrant to search your home for drugs. Let's say in the basement of your house you had a safe which contained your valuables. Lets assume for a minute the safe is locked, cemented, and welded to the foundation of the house. There are numerous reasons for people to do this. Does a search warrant of your home compel you to open that safe so the valuables within it are subject to civil forfeiture?

I have not looked the answer up. I would hope that you are not compelled to open the safe, as being compelled to provide such direct assistance would (in my mind) be a violation of protection against self incrimination. The situation seems analogous to demanding that a suspect reveal where he hid evidence; compelling a murder suspect to reveal where he hid the murder weapon, as an example, would be tantamount to forcing a confession. If the police had a valid warrant they could attempt to gain entry to the safe by their own devices.

But as I said that would be my opinion, which may well be naive.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[quade 4]

And I believe you are correct. You are not compelled to help them create a case against you.

The reason I bring this up should be obvious. All Apple and to a lesser degree Google are doing is putting a better lock on your phone. The entire reason to do that is because of the enormous amount of personal data users have on them.

YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO PRIVACY.

There is simply no reason whatsoever for people to hand over their entire lives on one, tiny, convenient device to some government agent just because he has a warrant. There is absolutely no reason on earth the government should have access to everything just because they want one thing.

It's a bit like the general advice not to speak without a lawyer (or at all), because if they have access to anything, they will use it in a court of law against you (even if it has nothing whatsoever to do with what they were initially looking for).

Understand I'm not saying the cell phone is special in the eyes of the law. What I'm saying is it OUGHT to be special in the eyes of the user and the user should have every legally available tool at his disposal to secure it including encryption so strong no other human can have access to the information on it.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[jcd11235 0]

quade

The entire reason to do that is because of the enormous amount of personal data users have on them.

I think their reasoning is less altruistic. They don't want to get caught between users and the NSA, etc. If they have access to the data, they could be compelled to betray customers and turn it over. If they don't do so, they face legal consequences. It's just smart business to not have access to the data to begin with.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!