XPost: alt.california, alt.politics.media, talk.politics.guns   
   XPost: can.politics   
   From: bwood@aol.com   
      
   NEWS ANALYSIS: FBI Director James Comey rails against encryption   
   while calling for laws abrogating constitutional protections and   
   effectively bringing back the "Writs of Assistance" for tech   
   companies of pre-revolutionary days.   
      
   There's no question that the institution of automatic encryption   
   by Apple and Google for their respective mobile devices has the   
   intelligence community on edge.   
      
   Senior officials from a variety of agencies in Washington, D.C.,   
   have been complaining since Apple announced that it was   
   instituting encryption for mobile devices that even Apple can't   
   break. Not fair, they say.   
      
   FBI Director James Comey upped the ante on Oct. 16 by proposing   
   that Congress change the law it passed about 20 years ago,   
   titled the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act,   
   which gives law enforcement access to electronic communications.   
      
   Problem is, the Act doesn't require telecom companies to provide   
   access to decrypted communications, nor does it require that the   
   companies produce keys so that the feds can break in to private   
   communications.   
      
   The FBI wants to change all that by requiring companies such as   
   Apple and Google to provide back doors so that law enforcement   
   can read whatever is on your smartphone at its convenience.   
      
   Comey trots out the old FBI bugaboo of asserting that people who   
   want to protect their private information have something to   
   hide, and suggesting that they are on the side of child   
   molesters and terrorists.   
      
   But in fact, not wanting the government to read your email has   
   nothing to do with having something to hide. The Fourth   
   Amendment of the U.S. Constitution specifically states, "The   
   right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,   
   papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,   
   shall not be violated."   
      
   You'll notice that there's nothing in the Constitution, either   
   in the Fourth Amendment or elsewhere, that discusses the   
   convenience of the FBI or anyone else in law enforcement.   
   Instead, it places a very difficult burden on the government   
   requiring probable cause before any search can be conducted.   
   When founders George Mason and John Adams wrote this part of the   
   Constitution, their idea was that any search or seizure was   
   supposed to be not only inconvenient for the government, but   
   even difficult.   
      
   In fact, the framers of the Constitution were thinking about   
   centuries of searches and seizures by the agents of absolutist   
   monarchs in Britain and Europe who didn't trouble themselves   
   about such niceties as warrants and probable cause. The   
   Constitution was written so the United States could turn its   
   back on this example of arbitrary kingly rule.   
      
   The proposed changes would bring about a situation much like the   
   Writs of Assistance during George III's administration, when the   
   king's agents could poke through your home or office looking for   
   whatever they might find.   
      
   Of course, things have changed. Now our personal information   
   exists outside our houses, but under current laws they get the   
   same protection. According to Ed Black, president and CEO of the   
   Computer and Communications Industry Association, the walls of   
   our homes now encompass our smartphones.   
      
   "The kind of information that people keep in their smartphones   
   is everything," Black told eWEEK. "These are the modern houses   
   for everything." Black also noted that even if we trusted the   
   FBI not to exceed its authority when it searched through our   
   digital homes, the fact is that such a back door would open up   
   our records to everyone. "The FBI is not the only entity," Black   
   said. "What about divorce lawyers, county sheriffs or anybody   
   else?"   
      
   The fact is that the FBI has a long history of abuses when it   
   comes to searches and seizures, but it's nothing when compared   
   with the routine flouting of privacy protections by some local   
   law enforcement entities or, for that matter, the National   
   Security Agency, as evidenced by the massive document leaks of   
   former NSA contractor Edward Snowden. Adding to that are the   
   nonexisting limits on foreign governments and other foreign   
   organizations, criminal or otherwise.   
      
   How long do you suppose it might be before the Chinese   
   government or the Russian cybercrime syndicates find a back door   
   if one existed? How long before repressive governments in Iran   
   or North Korea found a way in? The fact is that even if the   
   FBI's record were pristine and its motives pure, it still   
   wouldn't be enough.   
      
   And while it's clear that the FBI director sees his mission as   
   fighting terrorism and crime, including child abuse, the fact   
   is, the wholesale ability to prowl through honest citizens'   
   private effects isn't the way to accomplish it. After all, don't   
   you suppose that the terrorists and abusers already know about   
   encryption software? Breaking into their iPhones would only lead   
   to another layer of encryption, this time without a back door.   
      
   To make matters worse, the FBI and other law enforcement   
   organizations already have the resources they need to track down   
   and catch terrorists and other criminals. While it might make it   
   easier to get evidence for trial, breaking into a cell phone   
   isn't the only way to catch a crook.   
      
   Unfortunately, when it comes to snooping, the interests of law   
   enforcement haven't changed much in 250 years. The king's   
   agents, and now the FBI, don't want to put forth any more effort   
   than necessary.   
      
   The tendency has always been to make citizens acquiesce to their   
   convenience. But this is the reason the Fourth Amendment to the   
   U.S. Constitution exists. It is designed specifically to make it   
   hard for law enforcement to snoop.   
      
   Mason and Adams specifically intended for this to be the case   
   because of their experience with the Writs of Assistance. The   
   advent of modern technology hasn't changed that, and despite the   
   FBI director's desires, watering down the Constitution isn't the   
   answer.   
      
   http://www.eweek.com/security/fbi-director-ignores-4th-amendment-   
   in-call-for-encryption-back-doors.html?google_editors_picks=true   
      
       
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)