DOJ Made Secret Arguments To Break Crypto, Now ACLU Wants To Make Them Public (arstechnica.com) 105
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: Earlier this year, a federal judge in Fresno, California, denied prosecutors' efforts to compel Facebook to help it wiretap Messenger voice calls. But the precise legal arguments that the government made, and that the judge ultimately rejected, are still sealed. On Wednesday, the American Civil Liberties Union formally asked the judge to unseal court dockets and related rulings associated with this ongoing case involving alleged MS-13 gang members. ACLU lawyers argue that such a little-charted area of the law must be made public so that tech companies and the public can fully know what's going on.
In their new filing, ACLU lawyers pointed out that "neither the government's legal arguments nor the judge's legal basis for rejecting the government motion has ever been made public." The attorneys continued, citing a "strong public interest in knowing which law has been interpreted" and referencing an op-ed published on Ars on October 2 as an example. The ACLU argued that the case is reminiscent of the so-called "FBI v. Apple" legal showdown -- whose docket and related filings were public -- where the government made novel arguments in an attempt to crack the encryption on a seized iPhone. Those legal questions were never resolved, as the government said the day before a scheduled hearing that it had found a company to assist in its efforts. "Moreover, the sealing of the docket sheet in this case impermissibly prevents the public from knowing anything about the actions of both the judiciary and the executive in navigating a novel legal issue, which has the potential to reoccur in the future," the ACLU's attorneys continued.
"The case involves the executive branch's attempt to force a private corporation to break the encryption and other security mechanisms on a product relied upon by the public to have private conversations. The government is not just seeking information held by a third party; rather, it appears to be attempting to get this Court to force a communications platform to redesign its product to thwart efforts to secure communications between users."
In their new filing, ACLU lawyers pointed out that "neither the government's legal arguments nor the judge's legal basis for rejecting the government motion has ever been made public." The attorneys continued, citing a "strong public interest in knowing which law has been interpreted" and referencing an op-ed published on Ars on October 2 as an example. The ACLU argued that the case is reminiscent of the so-called "FBI v. Apple" legal showdown -- whose docket and related filings were public -- where the government made novel arguments in an attempt to crack the encryption on a seized iPhone. Those legal questions were never resolved, as the government said the day before a scheduled hearing that it had found a company to assist in its efforts. "Moreover, the sealing of the docket sheet in this case impermissibly prevents the public from knowing anything about the actions of both the judiciary and the executive in navigating a novel legal issue, which has the potential to reoccur in the future," the ACLU's attorneys continued.
"The case involves the executive branch's attempt to force a private corporation to break the encryption and other security mechanisms on a product relied upon by the public to have private conversations. The government is not just seeking information held by a third party; rather, it appears to be attempting to get this Court to force a communications platform to redesign its product to thwart efforts to secure communications between users."
disgusting abuse of authority (Score:5, Insightful)
In what world is this remotely a good idea? All citizens should see red flags when their government tries this sort of thing.
A clear indication that they do not value the very fabric that underpins society which they're charged to serve.
This is the kind of activity that makes you realize they'll exploit and bend any circumstance that fits their scheme.
Re:disgusting abuse of authority (Score:5, Insightful)
You think that. But everyone is afraid of the "Other" and are willing to give up their liberties to make sure this "Other" cannot hurt them.
However if I am the "Other" and I wanted to do something really bad anyways. I wouldn't trust normal communication infrastructure to be secure anyways. If I were to use it, I would encrypt on top of it with my own encryption algorithm. So it really makes the effort in spying just an expensive waste of money. But people feel good when some low level stupid criminals get arrested.
Re:disgusting abuse of authority (Score:5, Insightful)
Low level stupid criminals like the everyday Joe Randomsurfer, committing the heinous crime of doing something a corporation doesn't like. Because that's all this could potentially catch.
Re: disgusting abuse of authority (Score:3)
I would encrypt on top of it with my own encryption algorithm.
All they need to know is who you associate with.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
You think that. But...
Sorry; no "buts."
Re: (Score:2)
Only so many ways exist for the US gov to get into a modern communications network.
To push gov malware down per phone and hope consumer AV never notices.
To trick the end user into following a strange link. That opening a document will connect a strange link.
To have the OS do something to install new software.
To work with the telco company.
Go full PRISM with a big trusted US brand.
Work with another nation with different laws th
Re: disgusting abuse of authority (Score:5, Insightful)
You mean a practical certainty of loss of freedom and/or privacy vs a statistically very, very small chance of me and mine being harmed in a terrorist act?
I'll take that bet.
What happens when we surrender these rights and expectations? Do we not inch toward becoming more like the 'other'?
Re: (Score:1)
You see, that's the rub. You're right, that is the purported goal (really, I think you just have powerful, charismatic people taking advantage of the gullible and disenfranchised to further their own desire for power and recognition, but that's another conversation). However, how can they do that? They can't do it militarily. They can't do it culturally, or even economically - so they resort to terrorism. How does terrorism achieve their goals? Terror, of course. Scare the population, get in their mi
Re: disgusting abuse of authority (Score:4, Insightful)
Another quick point that needs to be added to the above that people VERY rarely consider and ALWAYS should. Let's just say with surrender all this power to the government. I trust the government, I think they have my best interest at heart and the means to actually achieve eradication of the threat. Yay! So let's pretend we win, terrorism is gone and the world's calm until the next dumbass thing us humans think of to hurt one another. So does the government give it back? NOT very likely, but you know, that's ok. I trust these guys in government too, hell, I even voted for them and they beat terrorism!! However, 20 years hence, hell, for the rest of the country's life, do you trust the government? If you would have given all this power to Obama (or Bush, or Clinton, etc) would you feel as comfortable with Trump being at the help? (or flip it if you're so inclined). Just food for thought.
Sure, we'll release the documents. (Score:1)
And we totally promise we won't hold back or redact anything. Promise. Really. Pinky swear. You can trust us; we're from the government.
Re:Sure, we'll release the documents. (Score:4, Funny)
Oh you're so 1990. Today the answer is "We're from the government and we needn't tell you jack shit, so fuck you. If you disagree, you're a terrorist and we'll fuck up your life, so better shut your pie hole. You're not even worth being lied to by us."
Re: (Score:1)
It is that way for lack of opposition, in fact most people want it. The government is only as abusive as the voters permit.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, let's vote for the OTHER party next time, that's gonna change everything!
Re: (Score:2)
You ARE in East Germany.
A little known fact is that some communist regimes in East Europe started to offer fake choices between two candidates. Yes, you had the choice! Vote for the commie. Or the other commie.
And whether you like it or not, you have exactly the same choice in the US. Vote for the corporate whore. Or the other corporate whore.
Re: (Score:1)
There are more than two on the ballot. Nobody is being forced to vote for the GOP/DNC. And the procedure for nominating the candidate of your choice is all well documented. It seems that most of you aren't aware that democracy is high maintenance. The voters are responsible for its condition. Don't blame anybody else for the choices they make.
Re: (Score:2)
A first-past-the-post system reduces the options to two. By definitions. If a third party emerges, one of the original two will have to vanish.
Take a look at your history and realize that there has never been a moment when there were more than two parties. And the last time a party got replaced it took a civil war to do so. The last time a candidate from a different party than The Two even got to second place in a presidential election was a century ago. And it was a former president.
It may work on a local
Re: (Score:1)
We have the power to change the system as we see fit. It is not the system's fault when we fail. It merely reflects our failure. The system is in our image. Like the alcoholic, we are still in denial, looking for somebody/thing else to blame.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't delude yourself. The only ones that could change the systems are also the ones that benefit from it not being changed.
Re: (Score:1)
So, I guess, give up? Don't think about it? I'll drink to that! It's just that, all your complaints are misdirected. We make the world we live in, even if by just playing along.
Re: (Score:2)
When both major parties are headed in the same direction, what choice do the voters have? Instant Runoff would at least give your argument the color of plausibility, but even then there are known and used ways of controlling the argument.
Re: (Score:1)
I'm sorry, but what requires you to vote for a 'major party'? I mean, are you voting for something, or are you just playing the odds?
Re: (Score:2)
I often don't, if both candidates are bad enough. But I vote for someone else knowing that my vote is thrown away. If you don't understand that, you don't understand the election system in a "plurality wins" election.
Re: (Score:1)
Voting for the major party is throwing your vote away. And that is what gives you what you have today. To me it's totally bizarre that the two worst candidates got 94.3% of the vote. All these little theories are nothing more than blame passing and rationalization.
Those who would give up... (Score:1)
Those who would give up essential Safety, to purchase a little temporary Liberty, deserve neither Safety nor Liberty
Fenjamin Branklin
Re: (Score:1)
Tire old cliche, repeated ad nauseum... Has no effect on election day.
Just make unbreakable encyption (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Remember, as Bruce Schneier has put it, that "A good working assumption is that the NSA can read any message that it chooses [...] Another good assumption is that they prefer breaking knuckles to breaking codes" (from "Applied Cryptography").
There's no substitute for good ol' repression (look at the laws in the UK: they can throw you into a damp, dark place until you cough up the keys).
Re: (Score:3)
The same kind of laws exist in the US, though I think that officially they have to call it "Contempt of Court".
Re: (Score:3)
We have that. And we've had that for a long time. Modern hard encryption is unbreakable. A $35 computer with $1 of electricity can make something all of the NSA's and Google's servers and god's own memory pool would still take thousands of years to brute-force.
The debate is if using it should be illegal.
If the use of hard encryption was illegal and they compelled companies and citizens to use inferior or broken encryption, they could get into and snoop on whomever they wish. Possibly requiring a warrant, de
30 Years later Johnny Law still hates freedom (Score:5, Interesting)
Why do you think that's limited to just encryption (Score:1)
Look at civil forfeiture, too.
This is what governments do.
Why do people act surprised that, given power, governments use that power against their own population?
You CAN'T ask a government to "solve your problems" and unless you want that government to suppress you.
Re:Why do you think that's limited to just encrypt (Score:5, Insightful)
You CAN'T ask a government to "solve your problems" and unless you want that government to suppress you.
That's precisely the role of government, though: solve your problems. There are many problems that are impracticable or inefficient for individuals to solve, so government steps in. The government is also expected to solve these problems in ways that benefit the whole. In some cases those solutions may be suboptimal for some individuals, but those individuals still benefit indirectly as society as a whole benefits. The issues arise when government abdicates its duty to the whole and enacts solutions that benefit an individual(s). That's where you get oppression, suppression, cronyism, corruption, despotism, autocratism, and good ol' fashioned modern American politics.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
So how did the government precisely solve my problems by invading Iraq?
I believe Iraq falls under the sections of "cronyism", "corruption", and "good ol' fashioned modern American politics". Iraq was about oil, defense contracts, and Bush wanting to finish what his dad started in 91.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh no, it wasn't a Republican thing. Not at all. Here's Madeline Albright falsely claiming Saddam had WMD and calling for invasion in 1998. [state.gov] Under Democrat Bill Clinton.
PNAC urges war in 1996 [informatio...house.info]
"That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor."
So don't go trying to blame this on Republicans. It certainly has nothing to do with good ol' fashioned modern American politics because Am
Re: (Score:2)
It certainly has nothing to do with good ol' fashioned modern American politics because Americans want nothing to do with foreign affairs.
That's the thing about good ol' fashioned modern American politics. It doesn't care about what Americans want. It only cares about what the political and financial elite want. Americans don't matter in American politics anymore except as a means to get either yourself or your puppet elected/reelected
Re: (Score:2)
The issues arise when government abdicates its duty to the whole
The issue is that people allow/encourage it to happen, because they too see a potential personal benefit for themselves. The government is a reflection. The power to change it is ours alone. There is no one else to blame for the chronic problems we create and sustain.
Re: (Score:1)
Nonsense. Just tell the politician, *If you want my vote, pay me*. We can be much more expensive than any lobbyist.
Re: (Score:1)
They need our vote no matter how much they spend on the campaign. Without it they cannot occupy the office despite the billions spent by their financiers. Make 'em pay us like they pay the lobbyist. For us the effort is trivial. But, if you like things the way they are, knock yourself out. Use your power, or don't. Just don't blame the "system", or the damn "Russians". You all did this to yourselves, in the effort to do it to each other.
Re: (Score:2)
Look at civil forfeiture, too.
Yeah, look at it! [npr.org]
I think it's been clear to a majority of us that it's absolutely an illegal abuse of power. Unfortunately, it takes time for things to work their way through the courts. Looks like civil forfeiture is going to get significantly neutered in the very near future. That's going to result in a lot of clawback from police departments, I'd be guessing. Going to keep the lawyers busy for years.
Re: Why do you think that's limited to just encryp (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This kind of nonsense has been going on since Diffie and Helman found a way to secure our freedom to communicate in private electronically...
This kind of nonsense has been going on since before the Church brainwashed everyone into thinking that God wants them to "confess everything" to the Powers That Be.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Reminder (Score:1)
Let's not dumb ourselves down to the level of Engadget, Ars, etc
Re: (Score:2)
OH FUCK NO! Crypto is a prefix, but if it has to be a short form for something it should be for cryptography and not cryptocurrency. The buttcoin bros can get fucked.
It would be best (Score:4, Insightful)
It would be best to assume all electronic / digital communication channels to be compromised already and adjust your means of communication accordingly if you need to discuss anything sensitive.
They will never quit until they get their way. Legally or in secret.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
The only problem I see with this approach is that it discourages people from educating themselves properly on basic security.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think we all know that the majority of voters would likely side with the DOJ on this one, and honestly I am sympathetic to both sides of the debate. Perfect or near-perfect encryption is a nightmare for law enforcement, rendering warrants all but meaningless unless they can grab the phone's owner while the device is in a state that it can be read. At the same time, even if I were to believe completely in the benign nature of the state, a backdoor used by good guys is potentially a back door that can be us
Re: (Score:2)
The lie that you can't have freedom and safety is older than America.
Why the secrecy? (Score:5, Insightful)
Are your arguments do harebrained and idiotic that you're afraid you get laughed out the court when the judge gets to hear what a sane person has to say about them?
Loss of assets (Score:2)
The gov't brought irrefutable evidence to the judge that the good of the public, its safety and national security would be irreparably harmed if Facebook Messenger were day lighted, exposing MS-13 and all existing surveillance lost on a very dangerous gang.
It would send MS-13 underground where the USgov't would need to start all surveillance over again.
Trump/Obama (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Kill yourself you fascist retard
And all'ya'll wonder why sane folks won't give up their guns.
The person quoted would happily roll their fellow countrymen into mass graves or send them to the gulag because they think differently than him.
I them them but... (Score:2)
Re: I them them but... (Score:1)
I stopped donating when I realized that they split into 2 organizations, profit and non-profit, but your money goes to the one that doesn't fight for your rights.
A Free Society is Open (Score:1)
If your LAW COURTS operate in secret you do not have a free society. Sorry to burst your freedumb bubble chaps..
Re:lock them up (Score:4, Insightful)
The directors of the ACLU need to be locked up. They are trators to america who put rights of violent foriners above safety and security of the real americans.
Yes of course, because we all know those in government would never abuse their surveillance powers to spy on political opponents, congresscritters, and journalists.
Oh, wait....
Strat