New York's Top Prosecutor Says We Need New Laws To Fight iPhone/Android Encryption

from the because-child-murdering-drug-dealers,-of-course dept

The greatest threat to law enforcement since the motocar continues to receive attention from entities aghast at the notion that peoples' communications and data might not be instantly accessible by law enforcement. Apple's decision (followed shortly thereafter by Google) to offer default encryption for phone users has kicked off an avalanche of paranoid hyperbole declaring this effort to be a boon for pedophiles, murders and drug dealers.



New laws have been called for and efforts are being made to modify existing laws to force Apple and Google into providing "law enforcement-only" backdoors, as if such a thing were actually possible. New York County's top prosecutor, Manhattan DA Cyrus Vance -- speaking at an FBI-hosted cybersecurity conference -- is the latest to offer up a version of "there ought to be a law."

Federal and state governments should consider passing laws that forbid smartphones, tablets and other such devices from being “sealed off from law enforcement,” Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance said today in an interview at a cybersecurity conference in New York.

“It’s developed into a sort of high-stakes game,” Vance said. “They’ve eliminated accessibility in order to market the product. Now that means we have to figure out how to solve a problem that we didn’t create.”

“This is an issue of public safety,” Vance said. “The companies made a conscious decision -- which they marketed -- to make these devices inaccessible. Now it’s our job to figure out how we can do our job in that environment.”

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community. Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis. While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Sure. These entities"consider" this. And then swiftly discard the idea. There's noreason why millions of people's data and communications should be madejust to make capturing criminals -- a small minority of the population --. There are onlyreasons. And those reasons are specious, at best. Cops have been catching criminals since long before the rise of the cellphone and they'll continue to do so long after default encryption becomes standard operating procedure.But to hear opponents of Apple's move tell it, encryption-by-default is an unfair impediment to investigative and law enforcement agencies.Vance's portrayal of this decision is dishonest and self-serving, but it's his last sentence that is the most skewed. Law enforcement (along with investigative and national security agencies)create this problem. They abused their powers to obtain warrantless access to metadata, data, communications, and anything stored locally on the phone. Cops routinely searched phones of those they detained without a warrant, something that was finally curbed by a Supreme Court decison . The NSA, FBI and law enforcement agencies all use the Third Party Doctrine to access call records, cell site location data and anything else that can be easily had without ever approaching a judge. So, theybring this on themselves. And that's why (as the oft-used quote goes) the "pendulum" has " swung the other way ."It's not marketing. It's a very specific reaction to years of unchecked government power. It's obvious the government can't restrain itself. So, these companies have made it "easier" for the government to refrain from abusing its power by making this decision for them. Sure, there's a limited market for more security, but making it default going forward gains these companiesin terms of new customers. It's not an option that's only available to people who buy certain phones or certain service contracts. It's forwho buys a phone. Vance echoes the statements of others in his attempt to portray this as a purely mercenary decision but the only thing this does is make him look stupider.After ticking the mandatory "crimes against children/murderers" emotional-plea checkbox, Vance goes on to cross "public safety" off the list of talking points.Incredibly, Vance portrays his deployment of every anti-encryption cliche as special and unique, claiming he's "going rogue" by speaking up on the subject. (Because everyone else has been oh so silent ...) But there's nothing new being said here. Again, Vance pushes the "greed" angle, but it's his last sentence that's the most ridiculous.Vance -- and others like him -- aren't "figuring out" how to do their jobs in "this environment." They have no desire to do that. What theyis to. The new environment doesn't cater to their instant access desires, but rather than deal with the limitations and approach them intelligently, they've chosen to portray encryption-by-default as Google and Apple's new plan to make a ton of money selling smartphones to child molesters and murderers.They want the laws to change, rather than law enforcement. And all they've offered in support are panic-button-mashing "arguments" and heated hyperbole. The problem is that panic buttons and hyperbole are effective legislative mobilizers. As bad as Vance's ideas are, there's a good chance he'll be able to find a number of politicians that agree with him. In all likelihood, the environment will be forced to adapt to law enforcement, rather than the other way around.

Filed Under: cyrus vance, encryption, mobile encryption, privacy