Do you think they should allow law enforcement officers access by warrants

[Penelope]

to investigate information that is in encrypted data of cell phones like Apple? or do you think it would be infringing on rights of private speech? Of course it would be after the crime is committed, or would it?

 

[martybegan]

to investigate information that is encrypted data of cell phones like Apple? or do you think it would be infringing on rights of private speech? Of course it would be after the crime is committed.

If police can get a warrant to search a house, including any safes, vaults, or hidden compartments, why couldn't they get a warrant to hack through encryption?

The principle is the same, and hell, they have been searching locked/encrypted computers for a while now with warrants.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

to investigate information that is encrypted data of cell phones like Apple? or do you think it would be infringing on rights of private speech? Of course it would be after the crime is committed.

Of course if you dont do criminal acts why would you have to worry about the police infringing upon your rights?

 

[Penelope]

to investigate information that is encrypted data of cell phones like Apple? or do you think it would be infringing on rights of private speech? Of course it would be after the crime is committed.

If police can get a warrant to search a house, including any safes, vaults, or hidden compartments, why couldn't they get a warrant to hack through encryption?

The principle is the same, and hell, they have been searching locked/encrypted computers for a while now with warrants.

Do you think they would listen without warrants? before the crime? It would be based on probable cause.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

to investigate information that is encrypted data of cell phones like Apple? or do you think it would be infringing on rights of private speech? Of course it would be after the crime is committed.

If police can get a warrant to search a house, including any safes, vaults, or hidden compartments, why couldn't they get a warrant to hack through encryption?

The principle is the same, and hell, they have been searching locked/encrypted computers for a while now with warrants.

Do you think they would listen without warrants? before the crime? It would be based on probable cause.

Seems that you are ignoring a fact i presented , do you have to worry about the police if you didnt commit a crime?

 

[martybegan]

to investigate information that is encrypted data of cell phones like Apple? or do you think it would be infringing on rights of private speech? Of course it would be after the crime is committed.

If police can get a warrant to search a house, including any safes, vaults, or hidden compartments, why couldn't they get a warrant to hack through encryption?

The principle is the same, and hell, they have been searching locked/encrypted computers for a while now with warrants.

Do you think they would listen without warrants? before the crime?

If the person is using an encrypted phone, unless you are the NSA, real-timing or close to real timing the cracking is next to impossible.

If you are a criminal and doing your thang over open cell connections, well, the phone is yours, but the towers and signal belongs to the wireless company.

 

[WinterBorn]

to investigate information that is encrypted data of cell phones like Apple? or do you think it would be infringing on rights of private speech? Of course it would be after the crime is committed.

Of course if you dont do criminal acts why would you have to worry about the police infringing upon your rights?

A citizen has a right to privacy. Unless they have been convicted of a crime, that right remains intact. It does not depend on whether you do something wrong.

 

[Penelope]

On Monday, the agency said that the FBI had unlocked two iPhones belonging to the shooter, Mohammed Saeed Alshamrani, in an incident that took place Dec. 6, 2019, at the Naval Air Station Pensacola in Florida. The shooting killed three sailors and wounded eight other people in what Attorney General William Barr called an act of terrorism.

Information on the iPhones revealed links to the terrorist group Al Qaeda, and evidence gathered from the devices led to counterterrorism actions in Yemen, the Justice Department said.

Even though the FBI was able to unlock the iPhones on its own, Barr slammed Apple for declining to help and slammed tech companies for protecting encryption.

FBI slams 'Apple problem' as it unlocks Pensacola shooter's iPhones

The Justice Department says Apple's refusal to break its own encryption hampered a national security investigation.

www.cnet.com

 

[evenflow1969]

to investigate information that is encrypted data of cell phones like Apple? or do you think it would be infringing on rights of private speech? Of course it would be after the crime is committed.

If police can get a warrant to search a house, including any safes, vaults, or hidden compartments, why couldn't they get a warrant to hack through encryption?

The principle is the same, and hell, they have been searching locked/encrypted computers for a while now with warrants.

Do you think they would listen without warrants? before the crime? It would be based on probable cause.

Seems that you are ignoring a fact i presented , do you have to worry about the police if you didnt commit a crime?

yes, yes you do! you think just because they wear a police hat they are good people? There are bad people in all walks of life no matter what job they have. People will do wrong and bad things so yes our privacy must be protected. Further more we have over 1.2 million lines of codified law, the odds are you are sitting there breaking a law you do not know about. Conservatives are supposed to be about small governenment, there is a damn good reason for that.

 

[Moonglow]

to investigate information that is encrypted data of cell phones like Apple? or do you think it would be infringing on rights of private speech? Of course it would be after the crime is committed.

Of course if you dont do criminal acts why would you have to worry about the police infringing upon your rights?

Because they make mistakes and do the wrong things at times to innocent people.

 

[Vastator]

to investigate information that is encrypted data of cell phones like Apple? or do you think it would be infringing on rights of private speech? Of course it would be after the crime is committed.

If police can get a warrant to search a house, including any safes, vaults, or hidden compartments, why couldn't they get a warrant to hack through encryption?

The principle is the same, and hell, they have been searching locked/encrypted computers for a while now with warrants.

Do you think they would listen without warrants? before the crime? It would be based on probable cause.

Seems that you are ignoring a fact i presented , do you have to worry about the police if you didnt commit a crime?

Sure. One doesn’t have to have committed a crime. The police only need to convince a judge that they believe a person may have committed a crime.

 

[Penelope]

to investigate information that is encrypted data of cell phones like Apple? or do you think it would be infringing on rights of private speech? Of course it would be after the crime is committed.

If police can get a warrant to search a house, including any safes, vaults, or hidden compartments, why couldn't they get a warrant to hack through encryption?

The principle is the same, and hell, they have been searching locked/encrypted computers for a while now with warrants.

Do you think they would listen without warrants? before the crime?

If the person is using an encrypted phone, unless you are the NSA, real-timing or close to real timing the cracking is next to impossible.

If you are a criminal and doing your thang over open cell connections, well, the phone is yours, but the towers and signal belongs to the wireless company.

From what I understand every call on a cell phone is encrypted. They want the phone.

 

[martybegan]

to investigate information that is encrypted data of cell phones like Apple? or do you think it would be infringing on rights of private speech? Of course it would be after the crime is committed.

If police can get a warrant to search a house, including any safes, vaults, or hidden compartments, why couldn't they get a warrant to hack through encryption?

The principle is the same, and hell, they have been searching locked/encrypted computers for a while now with warrants.

Do you think they would listen without warrants? before the crime?

If the person is using an encrypted phone, unless you are the NSA, real-timing or close to real timing the cracking is next to impossible.

If you are a criminal and doing your thang over open cell connections, well, the phone is yours, but the towers and signal belongs to the wireless company.

From what I understand every call on a cell phone is encrypted. They want the phone.

It's converted to a digital signal, but unless you are using a real encryption package a 12 year old can break the data system.

 

[Penelope]

to investigate information that is encrypted data of cell phones like Apple? or do you think it would be infringing on rights of private speech? Of course it would be after the crime is committed.

If police can get a warrant to search a house, including any safes, vaults, or hidden compartments, why couldn't they get a warrant to hack through encryption?

The principle is the same, and hell, they have been searching locked/encrypted computers for a while now with warrants.

Do you think they would listen without warrants? before the crime?

If the person is using an encrypted phone, unless you are the NSA, real-timing or close to real timing the cracking is next to impossible.

If you are a criminal and doing your thang over open cell connections, well, the phone is yours, but the towers and signal belongs to the wireless company.

From what I understand every call on a cell phone is encrypted. They want the phone.

It's converted to a digital signal, but unless you are using a real encryption package a 12 year old can break the data system.

The shooter, Mohammed Saeed Alshamrani, had two iPhones, and the FBI quickly got court approval on probable cause to search the devices, Barr said in prepared remarks discussing the government’s investigation. The attacker shot one of the phones, but the FBI was able to fix the device, he said. The second phone was also damaged but fixed. Alshamrani died during the incident, and the handsets were locked with passwords and encrypted, so the FBI can’t access information on the devices.

Barr Blasts Apple for Not Helping Unlock Shooter’s iPhones

Apple Inc. and the U.S. government are once again at odds over access to iPhones involved in a terrorist attack, putting the world’s largest technology company under renewed pressure to weaken privacy features that have become a key selling point.

www.bloomberg.com

 

[martybegan]

to investigate information that is encrypted data of cell phones like Apple? or do you think it would be infringing on rights of private speech? Of course it would be after the crime is committed.

If police can get a warrant to search a house, including any safes, vaults, or hidden compartments, why couldn't they get a warrant to hack through encryption?

The principle is the same, and hell, they have been searching locked/encrypted computers for a while now with warrants.

Do you think they would listen without warrants? before the crime?

If the person is using an encrypted phone, unless you are the NSA, real-timing or close to real timing the cracking is next to impossible.

If you are a criminal and doing your thang over open cell connections, well, the phone is yours, but the towers and signal belongs to the wireless company.

From what I understand every call on a cell phone is encrypted. They want the phone.

It's converted to a digital signal, but unless you are using a real encryption package a 12 year old can break the data system.

The shooter, Mohammed Saeed Alshamrani, had two iPhones, and the FBI quickly got court approval on probable cause to search the devices, Barr said in prepared remarks discussing the government’s investigation. The attacker shot one of the phones, but the FBI was able to fix the device, he said. The second phone was also damaged but fixed. Alshamrani died during the incident, and the handsets were locked with passwords and encrypted, so the FBI can’t access information on the devices.

Barr Blasts Apple for Not Helping Unlock Shooter’s iPhones

Apple Inc. and the U.S. government are once again at odds over access to iPhones involved in a terrorist attack, putting the world’s largest technology company under renewed pressure to weaken privacy features that have become a key selling point.

www.bloomberg.com

That is about data ON the phone, not data being transmitted. The issue here is the government can probably crack the data encryption on the phone easily using NSA software, but in a trail that software or at least its capability would be open for cross examination, something the NSA would never want.

Easier to just have apple give them access.

 

[Crepitus]

to investigate information that is in encrypted data of cell phones like Apple? or do you think it would be infringing on rights of private speech? Of course it would be after the crime is committed, or would it?

With a warrant?

Sure, why not?

 

[SavannahMann]

to investigate information that is encrypted data of cell phones like Apple? or do you think it would be infringing on rights of private speech? Of course it would be after the crime is committed.

Of course if you dont do criminal acts why would you have to worry about the police infringing upon your rights?

So what you are saying is you hate America, and the protections the Founders put upon the Government. Smaller less intrusive Government would seem to prohibit this. So what do you prefer? Socialist Totalitarian? Fascist Totalitarian? Or a mix of the two? As long as it is Totalitarian, of course.

 

[SavannahMann]

to investigate information that is in encrypted data of cell phones like Apple? or do you think it would be infringing on rights of private speech? Of course it would be after the crime is committed, or would it?

I have long argued that the passcode or decryption password of a phone is like the combination of a safe in a home. Yes, the police have a warrant to search the house, and even the safe. But I am not required to provide them with the combination. Getting into the Safe is their problem, not mine. Imagine if you had secrets hidden behind wall panels, or light fixtures. What intelligence agents call Slicks, and a cop showed up with a Search warrant. Arguing that I must unlock my phone is like arguing that when I get the warrant, I have to walk the cops all over the house and point out the evidence they want to collect.

A warrant is access to the location, or device. Not a requirement that I give them a guided tour. “Here under the rose bush, located ten feet down, in a non magnetic container so it can’t be located by a metal detector, is the gun I used to kill my neighbor.“

A warrant is a game of hide and seek. The cops are allowed to seek, but I am not required to let them know what or where I have hidden. The intent of the Founders was to protect individual rights, and make it hard to convict someone. They gave tools to the Courts and LEO’s to find the evidence, but the Fifth says I don’t have to testify against myself, and requiring me to unlock the phone and point out where the evidence may be is like expecting me to walk the cops through the house pointing out the evidence they are looking for.

 

[Penelope]

Statement from Attorney General William P. Barr on Introduction of Lawful Access Bill in Senate

Today, Attorney General William P. Barr issued the following statement on the introduction of a bill that would give law enforcement access to critical digital evidence if permitted by a court while also protecting privacy. The legislation is sponsored by Senators Lindsey Graham, Tom Cotton, and Marsha Blackburn.
“Passing legislation that allows warrant access to encrypted data will allow law enforcement to further provide for the safety and security of the American people. I applaud Chairman Graham and Senators Cotton and Blackburn for introducing the first-ever bill to address this issue.

Statement from Attorney General William P. Barr on Introduction of Lawful Access Bill in Senate

Today, Attorney General William P. Barr issued the following statement on the introduction of a bill that would give law enforcement access to critical digital evidence if permitted by a court while also protecting privacy. The legislation is sponsored by Senators Lindsey Graham, Tom Cotton, and...

www.justice.gov

--------------------------------------
I have mixed feeling about it, why not a rouge judge with a rogue lawmen, there are a lot out there, how about a rogue AG and a rogue President??

"Probable cause" anybody has probable cause. I am probably for the crime being first.

 

[SavannahMann]

Statement from Attorney General William P. Barr on Introduction of Lawful Access Bill in Senate

Today, Attorney General William P. Barr issued the following statement on the introduction of a bill that would give law enforcement access to critical digital evidence if permitted by a court while also protecting privacy. The legislation is sponsored by Senators Lindsey Graham, Tom Cotton, and Marsha Blackburn.
“Passing legislation that allows warrant access to encrypted data will allow law enforcement to further provide for the safety and security of the American people. I applaud Chairman Graham and Senators Cotton and Blackburn for introducing the first-ever bill to address this issue.

Statement from Attorney General William P. Barr on Introduction of Lawful Access Bill in Senate

Today, Attorney General William P. Barr issued the following statement on the introduction of a bill that would give law enforcement access to critical digital evidence if permitted by a court while also protecting privacy. The legislation is sponsored by Senators Lindsey Graham, Tom Cotton, and...

www.justice.gov

--------------------------------------
I have mixed feeling about it, why not a rouge judge with a rogue lawmen, there are a lot out there, how about a rogue AG and a rogue President??

"Probable cause" anybody has probable cause. I am probably for the crime being first.

The Press release has all the same code words and panic inducing words they always have. Why we have to do this, or else Terrorists, and Criminals, and worst of all Child Predators, will be safe to operate without our ability to do anything.

The Child Predators nonsense, and it is nonsense, is the keyword to make those who are wary, more entusiastic. I mean, who doesn’t want to stop Child Predators right? So if you oppose this, either you are a child predator, or you are a sociopath who doesn’t care that kids are being victimized.

So no. I am not supporting it.