
FBI chief warns encryption emboldens would-be Islamic State attackers - typon
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2015/07/08/uk-usa-fbi-islamic-state-idUKKCN0PI24L20150708
======
tired_man
The trend, here, I believe is a movement to end all personal encryption. Both
the US and UK state their best intentions, yes, as a tool to fight "terrorism"
and "organized crime" and "drug trafficking." Fine.

However, in the Trust-me-we-won't-spy-on-everyone" Department, both are sadly
bankrupt.

If these governments were people you actually had personal dealings with, how
could you trust them to keep their word?

------
chmaynard
I'm not a lawyer, but here's how I think it should work:

1\. DA asks court for a search warrant because a crime may have been
committed.

2\. If the evidence looks convincing, court issues warrant to search suspect's
phone.

3\. DA serves suspect with search warrant.

If the suspect won't unlock phone voluntarily, the suspect is in contempt of
court and subject to legal sanctions. Why does the phone manufacturer need to
get involved?

~~~
Zigurd
For one thing, your scenario isn't what the government wants. The government
wants to peek without the user knowing. This is the age of secret law.

For another, good security includes deniability: You can't prove a blob of
random-seeming data is or isn't encrypted data, and even granting knowledge
that it is, there is no way to prove there isn't more than one key to more
than one set of data.

