Good thing, or bad thing?

[karder]

I am all for anything that keeps snoopers out of my personal files, whether that snooper works for Uncle Sam or not.
Of course, after watching all the scandals from the IRS to Libya to the Fast and the Furious it seems that the government has no ability to find or retrieve files, e-mails or documentation of any kind. Apparently Snowden was the only guy who knew how to do that and he is in Russia now, so I guess I shouldn't waste my money on encryption.

[The Annoyed Man]

I voted bad as I think the cops should be able to access the phone if a properly issued search warrant is rwceived, not just a rubber stamp search warrant. Without a search warrant, they shouldn't be able to access the phone whether encrypted or not.

See.... I have to disagree with that, and here's why:

If they have a warrant, encryption won't matter, but they'll have to actually SERVE you with that warrant. Encryption prevents "no-knock" warrants on my phone, and no-knock warrants are a clear violation of the Constitution, no-matter what anybody says.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

So long as law enforcement can secretly invade my phone without cause, then I am not secure in my person, house, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of the same.

A warrant is not an unreasonable expectation. I have a right to be informed of it, and to be presented with it. The pendulum has been swinging against the 4th Amendment for a long time. It is about time that something intercede in its favor. If encrypting my phone FORCES law enforcement to present me with a warrant so that my rights are protected, then I'm in favor of it.

Big Brother has been used to having things their way for a long time now. If this actually puts a speed bump in the path of their headlong rush to destroy the 4th Amendment, then I am absolutely in favor of it. So what if it makes their job harder? It is next to impossible for me to defend myself against their unconstitutional onslaught. Cry me a river. This encryption levels the playing field and forces some accountability onto an institution which has grown TOO used to having things their own way......and my rights be damned.

And this isn't about being ANTI law-enforcement because I am anything but that. But if some small corner of my PRIVATE life is more secure from the possibility of intrusion.....even by cops in the performance of their jobs....then I'm in favor of it. I DO have a right to privacy under the 4th. They do NOT have a right to know everything about me in advance of my ever possibly breaking a law. If they want the information that is on my phone, then let them get a warrant and serve it, and being a law-abiding citizen, I will call my attorney and have him or her present before I hand over the phone. I have nothing to hide, but it is STILL none of their business. I am not guilty before being proven innocent. If they want to prove guilt, let them obtain a warrant and get the evidence........just like for any other kind of evidence.

[mojo84]

I voted bad as I think the cops should be able to access the phone if a properly issued search warrant is rwceived, not just a rubber stamp search warrant. Without a search warrant, they shouldn't be able to access the phone whether encrypted or not.

See.... I have to disagree with that, and here's why:

If they have a warrant, encryption won't matter, but they'll have to actually SERVE you with that warrant. Encryption prevents "no-knock" warrants on my phone, and no-knock warrants are a clear violation of the Constitution, no-matter what anybody says.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

So long as law enforcement can secretly invade my phone without cause, then I am not secure in my person, house, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of the same.

A warrant is not an unreasonable expectation. I have a right to be informed of it, and to be presented with it. The pendulum has been swinging against the 4th Amendment for a long time. It is about time that something intercede in its favor. If encrypting my phone FORCES law enforcement to present me with a warrant so that my rights are protected, then I'm in favor of it.

Big Brother has been used to having things their way for a long time now. If this actually puts a speed bump in the path of their headlong rush to destroy the 4th Amendment, then I am absolutely in favor of it. So what if it makes their job harder? It is next to impossible for me to defend myself against their unconstitutional onslaught. Cry me a river. This encryption levels the playing field and forces some accountability onto an institution which has grown TOO used to having things their own way......and my rights be damned.

And this isn't about being ANTI law-enforcement because I am anything but that. But if some small corner of my PRIVATE life is more secure from the possibility of intrusion.....even by cops in the performance of their jobs....then I'm in favor of it. I DO have a right to privacy under the 4th. They do NOT have a right to know everything about me in advance of my ever possibly breaking a law. If they want the information that is on my phone, then let them get a warrant and serve it, and being a law-abiding citizen, I will call my attorney and have him or her present before I hand over the phone. I have nothing to hide, but it is STILL none of their business. I am not guilty before being proven innocent. If they want to prove guilt, let them obtain a warrant and get the evidence........just like for any other kind of evidence.

TAM,
The encryption that is being discussed is not to prevent the cops from just secretly accessing your data. It's designed with the idea of preventing them from accessing it even if they have served you with a warrant.

If they want the information that is on my phone, then let them get a warrant and serve it, and being a law-abiding citizen, I will call my attorney and have him or her present before I hand over the phone.

I agree with this 100%. However, this is not what this level of encryption is about. It is about you being able to withhold the password and them not being able to access the data on it. Plus, ideally, they would not be given a warrant to search the phone of a "law abiding citizen". Do you think the non-law abiding citizen will follow the same protocol and also give the cops the password? Notice I stated multiple times, I believe the cops should be able to access the data IF they obtain a properly issued warrant. Notice my emphasis added to my comment above. If you believe as I do, that many search warrants are not properly issued and a judge just rubber stamps most warrant requests, then the issue is with the judges signing the warrants.

[Jim Beaux]

When you broke out the Chianti, did she back off?

Chianti? Man Im from Texas. I dont know anything about that kung-fu stuff!

[mojo84]

When you broke out the Chianti, did she back off?

Chianti? Man Im from Texas. I dont know anything about that kung-fu stuff!

Make sure you have some fava beans too. Hannibal Lecter (Silence of the Lambs).

[cb1000rider]

A few more thoughts:
1) An encrypted Iphone / I-cloud account won't help you if you don't keep a pass-code on your cell phone. IE - "swipe to unlock".
2) I worry about traffic stops related to texting. I'm allowed to use Google Maps while driving, but I'm not allowed to text. How is an officer going to know the difference? Caselaw seems unclear around what they're allowed to do with your cell phone in the case that you're stopped for a cell-phone related offense.

[The Annoyed Man]

A few more thoughts:
1) An encrypted Iphone / I-cloud account won't help you if you don't keep a pass-code on your cell phone. IE - "swipe to unlock".
2) I worry about traffic stops related to texting. I'm allowed to use Google Maps while driving, but I'm not allowed to text. How is an officer going to know the difference? Caselaw seems unclear around what they're allowed to do with your cell phone in the case that you're stopped for a cell-phone related offense.

In my case, it's easy. I set my phone in a hands-free mount that is attached to the inside of my windshield.... right next to the radar-detector. Before putting the phone in the mount, I've already launched Google Maps, it's on screen doing its GPS thing, the phone is already plugged into the charger, and I cannot easily reach the phone from the driver's seat. Any cop that walks up to my window is going to easily understand that I could not possibly have been texting, and he'll see the maps up with my location on it on screen.

[talltex]

I voted bad as I think the cops should be able to access the phone if a properly issued search warrant is rwceived, not just a rubber stamp search warrant. Without a search warrant, they shouldn't be able to access the phone whether encrypted or not.

See.... I have to disagree with that, and here's why:

If they have a warrant, encryption won't matter, but they'll have to actually SERVE you with that warrant. Encryption prevents "no-knock" warrants on my phone, and no-knock warrants are a clear violation of the Constitution, no-matter what anybody says.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

So long as law enforcement can secretly invade my phone without cause, then I am not secure in my person, house, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of the same.

A warrant is not an unreasonable expectation. I have a right to be informed of it, and to be presented with it. The pendulum has been swinging against the 4th Amendment for a long time. It is about time that something intercede in its favor. If encrypting my phone FORCES law enforcement to present me with a warrant so that my rights are protected, then I'm in favor of it.

Big Brother has been used to having things their way for a long time now. If this actually puts a speed bump in the path of their headlong rush to destroy the 4th Amendment, then I am absolutely in favor of it. So what if it makes their job harder? It is next to impossible for me to defend myself against their unconstitutional onslaught. Cry me a river. This encryption levels the playing field and forces some accountability onto an institution which has grown TOO used to having things their own way......and my rights be damned.

And this isn't about being ANTI law-enforcement because I am anything but that. But if some small corner of my PRIVATE life is more secure from the possibility of intrusion.....even by cops in the performance of their jobs....then I'm in favor of it. I DO have a right to privacy under the 4th. They do NOT have a right to know everything about me in advance of my ever possibly breaking a law. If they want the information that is on my phone, then let them get a warrant and serve it, and being a law-abiding citizen, I will call my attorney and have him or her present before I hand over the phone. I have nothing to hide, but it is STILL none of their business. I am not guilty before being proven innocent. If they want to prove guilt, let them obtain a warrant and get the evidence........just like for any other kind of evidence.

TAM,
The encryption that is being discussed is not to prevent the cops from just secretly accessing your data. It's designed with the idea of preventing them from accessing it even if they have served you with a warrant.

If they want the information that is on my phone, then let them get a warrant and serve it, and being a law-abiding citizen, I will call my attorney and have him or her present before I hand over the phone.

I agree with this 100%. However, this is not what this level of encryption is about. It is about you being able to withhold the password and them not being able to access the data on it. Plus, ideally, they would not be given a warrant to search the phone of a "law abiding citizen". Do you think the non-law abiding citizen will follow the same protocol and also give the cops the password? Notice I stated multiple times, I believe the cops should be able to access the data IF they obtain a properly issued warrant. Notice my emphasis added to my comment above. If you believe as I do, that many search warrants are not properly issued and a judge just rubber stamps most warrant requests, then the issue is with the judges signing the warrants.

I have a little different perspective to throw out. One of TAM's statements I highlighted hits pretty close to the main reason I'm in favor of encryption, and one of mojo84's statements really points out what I see as a danger of overzealous government intrusion. The information we are talking about was NEVER envisioned when the 4th Amendment was established. Even 20 years ago, the very idea of someone from the government being able to go in, after the fact, and listen to phone conversations, read private written communications and view electronically transmitted personal information and photos that may have occurred or been created long before the person was ever named as a suspect in any investigation, would have been viewed as science fiction by most people. Even if they had a court ordered phone tap in place, they couldn't go back prior to that time and listen to prior conversations that occurred previous to the court order. As mojo says, "Ideally, they would not be given warrant to search the phone of a "law abiding citizen". Unfortunately, the key word ideally is rarely associated with a government operation of any kind. Abuses happen every day. I am in favor of any individual...even one who DOES have something to hide, being able to refuse to give someone a password to prevent them from digging through all your personal communications. To me THAT goes right out of the 4th and into the 5th Amendment right against self incrimination. It is indeed a very slippery slope where technological advances have reached a point where they can easily circumvent the protections that all citizens were given in our Constitution.

[KD5NRH]

1) An encrypted Iphone / I-cloud account won't help you if you don't keep a pass-code on your cell phone. IE - "swipe to unlock".

I'm less concerned about direct physical access; the phone is rarely off my body outside my home. If LE is taking it from me, it's with permission, with a warrant, or with what they consider to be PC to do so, and can most likely use that to get access via whatever other methods. (Including having the provider unlock it for phones where master unlock without factory wipe/reset is an option, or just bypassing the OS to read the storage directly.) If a thief has taken it from me, I want them placing calls, surfing the web, taking selfies and doing anything else that can lead LE to them. A password vault-type app, encrypted folder, or even encrypted notepad app is enough to store the small amount of sensitive data I would keep on the phone.

[mojo84]

I voted bad as I think the cops should be able to access the phone if a properly issued search warrant is rwceived, not just a rubber stamp search warrant. Without a search warrant, they shouldn't be able to access the phone whether encrypted or not.

See.... I have to disagree with that, and here's why:

If they have a warrant, encryption won't matter, but they'll have to actually SERVE you with that warrant. Encryption prevents "no-knock" warrants on my phone, and no-knock warrants are a clear violation of the Constitution, no-matter what anybody says.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

So long as law enforcement can secretly invade my phone without cause, then I am not secure in my person, house, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of the same.

A warrant is not an unreasonable expectation. I have a right to be informed of it, and to be presented with it. The pendulum has been swinging against the 4th Amendment for a long time. It is about time that something intercede in its favor. If encrypting my phone FORCES law enforcement to present me with a warrant so that my rights are protected, then I'm in favor of it.

Big Brother has been used to having things their way for a long time now. If this actually puts a speed bump in the path of their headlong rush to destroy the 4th Amendment, then I am absolutely in favor of it. So what if it makes their job harder? It is next to impossible for me to defend myself against their unconstitutional onslaught. Cry me a river. This encryption levels the playing field and forces some accountability onto an institution which has grown TOO used to having things their own way......and my rights be damned.

And this isn't about being ANTI law-enforcement because I am anything but that. But if some small corner of my PRIVATE life is more secure from the possibility of intrusion.....even by cops in the performance of their jobs....then I'm in favor of it. I DO have a right to privacy under the 4th. They do NOT have a right to know everything about me in advance of my ever possibly breaking a law. If they want the information that is on my phone, then let them get a warrant and serve it, and being a law-abiding citizen, I will call my attorney and have him or her present before I hand over the phone. I have nothing to hide, but it is STILL none of their business. I am not guilty before being proven innocent. If they want to prove guilt, let them obtain a warrant and get the evidence........just like for any other kind of evidence.

TAM,
The encryption that is being discussed is not to prevent the cops from just secretly accessing your data. It's designed with the idea of preventing them from accessing it even if they have served you with a warrant.

If they want the information that is on my phone, then let them get a warrant and serve it, and being a law-abiding citizen, I will call my attorney and have him or her present before I hand over the phone.

I agree with this 100%. However, this is not what this level of encryption is about. It is about you being able to withhold the password and them not being able to access the data on it. Plus, ideally, they would not be given a warrant to search the phone of a "law abiding citizen". Do you think the non-law abiding citizen will follow the same protocol and also give the cops the password? Notice I stated multiple times, I believe the cops should be able to access the data IF they obtain a properly issued warrant. Notice my emphasis added to my comment above. If you believe as I do, that many search warrants are not properly issued and a judge just rubber stamps most warrant requests, then the issue is with the judges signing the warrants.

I have a little different perspective to throw out. One of TAM's statements I highlighted hits pretty close to the main reason I'm in favor of encryption, and one of mojo84's statements really points out what I see as a danger of overzealous government intrusion. The information we are talking about was NEVER envisioned when the 4th Amendment was established. Even 20 years ago, the very idea of someone from the government being able to go in, after the fact, and listen to phone conversations, read private written communications and view electronically transmitted personal information and photos that may have occurred or been created long before the person was ever named as a suspect in any investigation, would have been viewed as science fiction by most people. Even if they had a court ordered phone tap in place, they couldn't go back prior to that time and listen to prior conversations that occurred previous to the court order. As mojo says, "Ideally, they would not be given warrant to search the phone of a "law abiding citizen". Unfortunately, the key word ideally is rarely associated with a government operation of any kind. Abuses happen every day. I am in favor of any individual...even one who DOES have something to hide, being able to refuse to give someone a password to prevent them from digging through all your personal communications. To me THAT goes right out of the 4th and into the 5th Amendment right against self incrimination. It is indeed a very slippery slope where technological advances have reached a point where they can easily circumvent the protections that all citizens were given in our Constitution.

Does your opinion include written data that is contained within files and other such physical personal data in your possession when a warrant has been properly issued?

[Jim Beaux]

A few more thoughts:
1) An encrypted Iphone / I-cloud account won't help you if you don't keep a pass-code on your cell phone. IE - "swipe to unlock".
2) I worry about traffic stops related to texting. I'm allowed to use Google Maps while driving, but I'm not allowed to text. How is an officer going to know the difference? Caselaw seems unclear around what they're allowed to do with your cell phone in the case that you're stopped for a cell-phone related offense.

Here ya go.

New radar gun may inform police if you're texting

The company is ComSonics, and its miraculous device can detect the radio waves from an active phone inside of a car. According to spokesman Malcolm McIntyre, it's not all that different from what cable repairmen use to find damaged cable lines.

Importantly, the new device is capable of parsing through the various frequencies that accompany telephone and data signals and isolate those for text messages, so you aren't likely to get nabbed if you're talking via Bluetooth or you receive an email.

http://www.autoblog.com/2014/09/19/rada ... ng-report/

[Jumping Frog]

I am a criminal who stole 1,000 lbs of gold.

You reasonably suspect that I stole it and obtain a search warrant.

Just because you have a search warrant does not mean I have to tell you where I buried the treasure.

Fifth. Amendment.

That is no different than being forced to tell you the password to my phone so you can find my "buried treasure" there.

The Constitution protects all citizens, including criminals.

[mojo84]

Interesting perspective jumping frog. I agree with you.

However, that is the crux of the discussion. Without this level of encryption, the cops wouldn't be in a position to have to rely on the criminal/suspect to give them the password. One wouldn't be required to tell where the child porn pictures are in one's house but the cops whould be able to search and access them with a properly issued search warrant.

It seems some think this is related to what the NSA was/is doing. It is a different issue. The NSA is spying on innocent citizens along with some thought to be terrorists. This issue is about searching phone and computer data based upon PC and/or properly issued search warrant.

Why do some think a phone or computer should exempt from a search as a result of a properly issued search warrant when ones house, body or car isn't? Should searches be eliminated completely?

[mojo84]

CNN article regarding Supreme Court ruling regarding the requirement to have a search warrant to search a phone.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/25/justice/s ... ll-phones/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[KD5NRH]

Here ya go.

Importantly, the new device is capable of parsing through the various frequencies that accompany telephone and data signals and isolate those for text messages, so you aren't likely to get nabbed if you're talking via Bluetooth or you receive an email.

http://www.autoblog.com/2014/09/19/rada ... ng-report/

Of course, then it will only detect SMS, so the guy using Google Voice to text, or the guy Facebook messaging will still be indistinguishable from the guy with a phone that's updating its apps in his pocket.