[slg]

I don't support what the government is trying to do here, but minimizing this issue like this is not doing us any favors.

The issue isn't that law enforcement can no longer "look around" your phone. The issue is that they can no longer get a warrant and use what is on your phone as evidence in an investigation or court case without the phone owner's cooperation. Basically your phone goes from being personal property that can be used against you as evidence to an extension of your mind that is now subject to 5th amendment protection. That is a big shift.

In terms of your originally analogy, encryption isn't a simple door lock, it is a magical warrant proof lock. I certainly understand why law enforcement wouldn't be happy about this.

[alasdair_]

We should ban the ownership of non-trivial safes for the same reason then. We should also prevent people from writing things in non-approved languages, in case in makes the understanding of things more difficult when a warrant is served.

Hell, if I just hide my information in a stack of a million other paper files, that would be enough to thwart all but the most determined investigator from accessing it without my cooperation.

[csandreasen]

A long time ago I worked in a guarded military vault with lots of safes - I've never seen one that would take more than an hour or two to break into. The idea is to slow an attacker down long enough that they can be detected and security can get on the scene to deal with them.

None of your examples would prevent an investigator from finding evidence, only delay them. Strong encryption enabled by default could slow down an investigation to the point where it would go on past the heat death of the universe.

[Zigurd]

There have always been tools and procedures for destroying documents to prevent unwanted access.

What's very very bad about this, in addition to the direct effects on people's privacy, is that it creates a class system of people who are allowed access to strong encryption while the cattle being farmed on this plantation are not.

[icebraining]

What's very very bad about this, in addition to the direct effects on people's privacy, is that it creates a class system of people who are allowed access to strong encryption while the cattle being farmed on this plantation are not.

What do you mean?

[Zigurd]

This restricts access to strong encryption by a broad range of ordinary people. It's discriminatory. It creates a class system. Shepherds and mutton-eaters vs. the sheep. "Privacy for the rich/powerful/savvy, but not for you."

[icebraining]

Yes, I understood that. What I didn't understand is what you meant by "this". Do you mean, the move by Apple and Google? Or the FBI? And in any case, how so?

[mikeash]

They can get a warrant, and they can use anything they find as evidence.

Encryption might make it hard for them to find much of use, but that's not our problem. A really sturdy safe will make it difficult to execute a warrant too, but that's not an argument for deliberately compromising the integrity of safes.

I can, of course, understand why law enforcement wouldn't be happy about this. They shouldn't be happy about this. But the rest of us should be perfectly happy to tell them to pound sand.

[csandreasen]

As I've pointed out in another comment on the thread, I've never come across a safe that couldn't be drilled in a few hours, and that's without any government intervention to compromise their integrity. Strong encryption is an entirely different beast.

[mikeash]

How about encasing something in 20ft of reinforced concrete and then sinking it to the bottom of the ocean?

Strong encryption may be tougher to break but I disagree that it's entirely different. It's merely a quantitative difference. It's a standard principle that the police can break into whatever they can if they have a warrant, but they can't force you to make things easy for them ahead of time.

[csandreasen]

You can keep coming up with analogies that are increasingly more difficult for the cops to get into, but ultimately it's just an exercise in sophistry. Only when people begin commonly storing their belongings inside 20ft of reinforced concrete at the bottom of the ocean will it become analogous to seeking a warrant to gain access to their phone.

[mikeash]

Even so, there's nothing that says we have to make it easy, or even possible, for police to execute a warrant against us.

[pdkl95]

Law enforcement (and the powers it necessarily must be granted) is intended to be harder. That's the whole point of the various requirements and procedures that make up "due process". Yes, we could catch more criminals a lot faster if we relaxed those requirements, but history shows that always increases the error rate.

If the situation has changed and there are legitimate law enforcement needs that simply didn't exist in the past, then they should request a change to the social contract through legitimate channels and propose the necessary amendment to the constitution. Law enforcement's failure to even try going through proper channels speaks loudly to how little they actually respect the law.

[vonmoltke]

> Basically your phone goes from being personal property that can be used against you as evidence to an extension of your mind that is now subject to 5th amendment protection.

Actually, it does not go that far. The 5th Amendment protects people from being forced to inciminate themselves. Otherwise, a person could be charged with contempt of court, obstruction of justice, or similar crimes. Someone who refuses to decrypt their data when subject to a warrant will face that penalty, just like someone who refuses to answer a subpeona or destroys documents relevant to a counrt case.

[esrauch]

Whether or not giving up a password or unlock code is protected by the 5th amendment is itself a gray area that the courts are still sorting out.

I would prefer to have the password NOT be protected by the 5th amendment and have strong encryption on phones than not have strong encryption on phones. That seems like the only way to prevent casual warrantless rummaging.

[tlrobinson]

"Basically your phone goes from being personal property that can be used against you as evidence to an extension of your mind"

Yes, and...? That sounds about right. An implanted device wired directly to your brain seems like the ultimate conclusion to this age of "wearables" we're just now entering.

[sixothree]

Yes, but everything on your phone came from someplace where a warrant will produce evidence.

[polarix]

A big, crucial shift.