Smartphone encryption, privacy and law enforcement


#1

“What concerns me about this is companies marketing something expressly to allow people to place themselves beyond the law.”

I think this will be the legal attack argument for technologies such as these and Maidsafe…


#2

It’s not illegal to encrypt one’s data and furthermore all code used for encryption is readily available, so they can’t do anything about it.


#3

Now the next step is to design a phone based on maidsafe.


#4

I think that phone will be available in now 2014, check out Indie Phone:

http://redecentralize.org/interviews/2014/04/21/14-aral-indiephone.html

You can support their October 24 2014 Thunderclap (Thundercats Whoaaa (btw this is totally unrelated))

And their November 8 2014 Crowdfunding campaign

Allthough you’ll be able to hold your own data with Indie Phone. I always think that maybe the phoneparts might be/start spying on us


#5

More on how the arguments for and against this kind of technology will be framed:


#6

Yeah…and their use of Stingray is a big concern for privacy advocates. Stingray is essentially a program that allows them to spoof cell towers in order to trick phones into submitting data. Efforts to gain more information on it is prevented by the makers, Harri s corporation who require nondisclosure agreements from the departments they work with. Huge problem with privacy rights advocates as there are a few court cases that are going on right now. The US Marshalls even went so far as to remove records hours before a records request from the ACLU was deadlined for the courts.

I think in the age of citizen journalism and the increasing exposure of rights abuse from law enforcement agencies make the need for privacy all the more necessary. While it is obvious that they are going to be a controlling factor in the national media regarding the talking points, it should be noted that their use of technology is already in excess of what the public thinks they are capable of. They aren’t going to accept it without a fight. But while the current debate is on Apple and Google encryption, I am curious how Maidsafe will be taken. Decentralization has a chance to change things completely and for the better in my opinion. The voices of people who are unfairly targeted by law enforcement need to be heard.


#7

Quote from the article:

"A key voice on the public side has been FBI Director James Comey. “I am a huge believer in the rule of law,” he said, “but I also believe that no one in this country is beyond the law,” in addressing reporters last week. “What concerns me about this is companies marketing something expressly to allow people to place themselves beyond the law.”

Isn’t James Comey contradicting himself here? If no one in the U.S. is beyond the law, then that includes Comey himself and it includes the FBI.


#8

From the article:

“Authoritarian countries like Russia, China, the United Arab Emirates, Sudan, and Saudi Arabia want to censor, spy on, and control their citizens’ communications. These nations are just as able to make demands that Apple and Google decrypt devices as the FBI is, and to back up those demands with effective threats.”

On balance, she said, “the public is more secure, not less secure, with the wide use of strong cryptography—including cryptography without back doors.”

Where I live it’s legal to use cryptography. I even checked with legal authorities who confirmed it. Yay. No more 9/11 attacks please, lest even free democratic countries will go totally Orwellian.