DOJ Launches New Cybercrime Unit, Claims Privacy Top Priority 61
msm1267 writes: Leslie Caldwell, assistant attorney general in the criminal division of the Department of Justice, announced on Thursday the creation of a new Cybercrime Unit, tasked with enhancing public-private security efforts. A large part of the Cybersecurity Unit's mission will be to quell the growing distrust many Americans have toward law enforcement's high-tech investigative techniques. (Even if that lack of trust, as Caldwell claimed, is based largely on misinformation about the technical abilities of the law enforcement tools and the manners in which they are used.) "In fact, almost every decision we make during an investigation requires us to weigh the effect on privacy and civil liberties, and we take that responsibility seriously," Caldwell said. "Privacy concerns are not just tacked onto our investigations, they are baked in."
Let me be the first to say.... (Score:5, Funny)
aaaaaahahahahahahaha
Re:Let me be the first to say.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Whats so funny? Of course Privacy is their top priority.... they always want to seek out and destroy it wherever they find it. Its enemy #1
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure whether I'm hopeful or ironically amused that this is currently on the Slashdot front page a few slots above a story called "Ron Wyden Introduces Bill To Ban FBI 'Backdoors' In Tech Products".
Inescapable truth of the day: If you force developers to build back doors into their hardware or software that your people can exploit, you also force them to build in back doors that anyone else can exploit.
You can't value and protect security except when you later decide you don't want it to be there. Th
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
what's so funny?
they will totally protect the privacy of the people that are part of this 'cybercrime' unit. everyone else's, not so much.
I'll trust you more when... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, no. The police are SOME of the terrorists. There do exist terrorists who are not police.
Re: (Score:2)
...wrote the Anonymous Coward.
That's exactly what we need (Score:3)
Misinformation (Score:1)
(Even if that lack of trust, as Caldwell claimed, is based largely on misinformation about the technical abilities of the law enforcement tools and the manners in which they are used.)
So they're going to combat this "misinformation" with complete, clear details about these abilities and manners of use, right?
It's rich to complain about misinformation while making your local police sign NDAs.
Re: (Score:2)
So let me see if I get this right. (Score:5, Interesting)
... the head of one agency in the executive branch has said that it needs backdoors to be installed in devices (or the terrorists win). And now there's another agency (in the *same department*) whose "top priority" is the exact opposite?
So let me see if I get this right. (Score:1)
Seems par for the course, the right hand does not know what the left hand is doing.
Or care.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:So let me see if I get this right. (Score:4, Insightful)
"Privacy concerns are not just tacked onto our investigations, they are baked in" makes perfect sense, and doesn't at all contradict the idea that the FBI wants backdoors into everything, or that the NSA already has them. The fact that they want backdoors is a valid privacy concern: How can they most efficiently strip the public of it.
Amazing what you can say without lying, when you carefully pick your choice of words.
Re:So let me see if I get this right. (Score:4, Funny)
It's a PR division pure and simple. Good Cop Bad Cop as literal as it gets.
"FBI did something 'bad' so we gave them a spanking... of course they like spankings so we gave them a bunch more and OOOH BOY that was fun! Then we went out and got wasted. Good times."
Re: (Score:2)
Quell in this context sounds more like "We will find those spreading distrust and remove them from the population." Then they can have their cake and eat it to.
Re: (Score:2)
These are the guys they hire to feel bad about the whole thing and publicly wring their hands.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So what I'm hearing is that "Parallel Construction" based on NSA data, the use of Stingrays and the various creative ways law enforcement has found to get out of justifying warrants is just a misunderstanding. That is a relief, for a while there I though there was cause for concern.
Re: (Score:2)
And "affordable care" costs more. And they also want to increase my freedom by applying more restrictions. The word is "Orwellian."
No no... (Score:1)
Increased privacy for GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES. For the average pleb though, expect further intrusions into your personal lives.
Re: (Score:1)
The DOJ is itself a criminal organization (Score:4, Informative)
The DOJ is itself a criminal organization that violates the law at every opportunity to do so. How can we even accept anything they say? I certainly don't. There is no real difference between them and the mafia. The government has sanctioned and promoted outright STEALING of money by law enforcement. No charges need be brought against you to take your money. And if you want it back it costs more to reclaim it then what was stolen generally speaking. Then they hand those who stole the money a percentage of it to encourage repeating that outright legalized theft.
The the system encourages the blackmailing of accused through trumped up the charges in the hopes of scoring a 'win' (conviction) for there future employment and political opportunities. Prosecutors are not impartial and yet are suppose to be. They're suppose to hand over evidence and yet consistently fail to do so where that evidence may help the defense.
The courts have standardized sentencing guidelines that ensure defendant do not fight the charges in court. While you would think such guidelines that ensure fair and equal treatment for similar crimes would be a good thing the reality is they'll try and get you for 20 years in jail for even petty crimes-just to get you to accept a lesser charge which might include a $100 fine and no jail time. The only people who win are the judges, prosecutors, lawyers, and law enforcement officers who participate in this criminal system.
um (Score:2, Insightful)
"In fact, almost every decision we make during an investigation requires us to weigh the effect on privacy and civil liberties, and we take that responsibility seriously,"
That's nice, but your statement highlights the real problem here... which is that federal agencies seem to think that they get to weigh the value of our civil liberties against the value of our safety. That's not the case, these agencies do not get to make a judgment about just how much of our privacy and/or civil liberties they're allowed to violate. They're not allowed to violate them... AT ALL... without a warrant or conviction. It doesn't matter how careful they are. It doesn't matter what the consequen
Re: (Score:1)
Re:um (Score:4, Interesting)
Actually they do because we the people authorized them to do so. When a member of Congress authorizes a federal agency to act in that capacity they are acting on your behalf. That's what a representative government does. You might not like it but it does not mean that federal agency is engaging in an illegal behavior. Now if you want to change what they can do or raise the threshold by which that can do something, you can by working through your representative.
We CANNOT authorize the federal government to violate our rights without a constitutional amendment. That's the point of the constitution. It's a framework that the federal and state governments are bound to work within. Laws cannot be passed that violate the constitution. The constitution is very clear about when and how we lose those rights. Namely, when there's a warrant or we're convicted of a federal crime. There is, at no time, a way in which the government can legally search your property or correspondence without a warrant. Ever... under any circumstances. And we could not pass a law that allowed them to. Ever. We'd have to amend the constitution to make such a thing possible.
What the federal government is doing is without a doubt unconstitutional. The problem is, they are very aware of that fact. They see the constitution as an obstacle to their goal of "keeping us safe" As a result, they've gone to extraordinary lengths to hide their activity. They've made it very difficult to bring up their activity in court and challenge its constitutionality. As of yet, no challenge has ever been made to the federal government absent a trial. Basically, they are using the information they are garnering to disappear people into foreign governments that do not have our protections. They are not using he information to try and convict anyone so no-one can challenge its constitutionality. Efforts are being made by the ACLU and the EFF but it's a very difficult process.
If you truly understood what was going on, you'd be terrified. This is the path to Totalitarianism... despotism. The road we're on leads no-where good, and it's sad that our president, a constitutional scholar of all things, has actually expanded the activity.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually they do because we the people authorized them to do so.
I wish we could call for a vote of no confidence in our government or something.
Also I would LOVE it if we had double dissolutions [wikipedia.org] when our legislative houses deadlock on stuff like keeping the government open. Unfortunately of course, the country is gerrymandered five ways from Sunday so I'm sure such an election would have little to no actual effect.
A new corollary for an old proverb (Score:3, Insightful)
Reagan famously reminded Gorbachev of the old Russian proverb, "Trust but verify." Here's a corollary for the modern age: "Trust but encrypt."
Re: (Score:1)
Why trust them at all? What have they done to earn it?
Privacy from whom? (Score:1)
Privacy is the top priority . . . (Score:2)
Yup, I bet it is. They definitely need to find a way to sidestep privacy ASAP so all these damned civilians can be properly monit^H^H^H^H^H kept safe.
I dub thee 'Ministry Of Privacy' (Score:2)
...in the Orwellian tradition.
Reality is... (Score:2)
“The technotronic era involves the gradual appearance of a more controlled society. Such a society would be dominated by an elite, unrestrained by traditional values. Soon it will be possible to assert almost continuous surveillance over every citizen and maintain up-to-date complete files containing even the most personal information about the citizen. These files will be subject to instantaneous retrieval by the authorities. ”--Zbigniew Brzezinski, Between Two Ages: America's Role in the Techn
When they say they care about privacy... (Score:1)