
In test case, U.S. fails to force Facebook to wiretap Messenger calls - T-A
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-facebook-encryption-exclusive/exclusive-in-test-case-u-s-fails-to-force-facebook-to-wiretap-messenger-calls-sources-idUSKCN1M82K1
======
chrischen
The US government will need to buy targeted ads. Then Facebook will let them
hear the calls.

~~~
pawelmurias
"Have you been peddling dope lately? Apply right now for a awesome plea
bargain!"

------
fipple
Ultimately, the government will do what it wants with respect to wiretapping
because the ruling class of both political parties in the US support it, so
there is no electoral accountability. Thus Facebook would be wise to give the
appearance of compliance and willingness to help, while resisting total
dragnets.

~~~
zarriak
No, it is much more advantageous for them to engage in stuff like PRISM which
has no public oversight or accountability and then play pretend in courts.
Also this gives them more leverage, they would much prefer these things come
in the form of legislation that creates barriers to entry for social media.

------
fragmede
Don't forget that in August, Facebook's head of security, Alex Stamos, stepped
down on the strength of his principles, and with that, I'd give a lot _more_
credibility to the possibility that, as others have pointed out; that Facebook
could intentionally weaken crypo at the behest of the government in exchange
for plausible deniability allowing for parallel reconstruction.

~~~
pas
> parallel reconstruction

No re- prefix needed.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction)

------
qrbLPHiKpiux
Cyrus Fariver has the whole document online, it’s an interesting read.

[https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4951792-828c547a-33c...](https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4951792-828c547a-33ce-4723-a294-883a95e7ee59.html#document/p38/a457338)

------
tempodox
Doing all this surveillance working for SV companies definitely pays better
than doing it for an alphabet agency. SV will never just give up their data
for free.

------
LanceH
The government asks (demands) access, but takes no responsibility for abuse.
Just saying...

------
dmartinez
There is a chance that Facebook is trying to change public opinion for the
better with a move like this. Unlikely, but possible.

------
polyphonic01
If in the course of a criminal investigation it becomes necessary to wiretap a
suspect, Facebook should cooperate with the government and implement the
wiretap. As long as a warrant is issued for the wiretap, there should be no
issue with this.

Protection of people's privacy must be balanced with granting law enforcement
sufficient powers to effectively prosecute criminals.

~~~
SheinhardtWigCo
Do you think that building codes should require every bedroom to have a
microphone connected to the local courthouse, to be activated only in the
event that the authorities suspect the occupants are going to discuss a crime?

~~~
polyphonic01
No, I consider that giving law enforcement too much access. Others may
disagree.

From the article: "Telecommunications companies are required to give police
access to calls under federal law, but many apps that rely solely on internet
infrastructure are exempt. Facebook contended Messenger was covered by that
exemption."

I think it's good that law enforcement can tap calls if necessary, and I see
no convincing reason why the existing law and precedent should not extend to
apps like messenger which are used just as traditional phones are by many
people. Therefore I'm comfortable extending the law to internet based
communications.

The powers granted to government should not be absolute, but there must be
powers that are granted, so we debate about what powers to grant. The debate
cannot be resolved on an a priori basis using abstract principles, it can only
be resolved on a case by case basis. If we only rely on abstract principles we
will inevitably be pulled toward absolute power or absolute impotency.

~~~
ubernostrum
So let's walk through the logic here.

Suppose you say any system that can be used for communications must have a way
to tap when a warrant is issued.

This means any encrypted communications system must have a back door built in
that the government can access. And not just some single highly-regulated
federal task force: _any_ federal, state or local court in the US could in
theory issue a warrant for someone's communication data, so the backdoor would
have to be accessible to all of them.

Which means there's no encryption. There's no way that many separate people
and agencies, all with access, would be able to maintain operational security;
sooner or later it's going to blow wide open and anyone who wants to get
access to someone else's communications will be able to with little effort.

That's what you're arguing for. Is that what you _want_ to argue for?

And this is not idle abstract hypothetical slippery-sloping here. When the
legal fight was happening, to try to force Apple to decrypt the San Bernardino
shooter's phone, news came out that local police agencies around the country
were literally lining up things like "someone was in a car crash, decrypt
their phone for us so we can see if they were texting while driving" requests
in anticipation of Apple being forced to decrypt phones in response to court
orders. The instant you open up and force a backdoor/decrypt for one case, it
will be _wide_ open for every case, everywhere, and then we're back to
effectively no encryption.

~~~
sjy
> There's no way that many separate people and agencies, all with access,
> would be able to maintain operational security

Then why isn’t this already the case for unencrypted communications? Law
enforcement agencies all over the world routinely obtain lawful access to
private data stored in Facebook, Dropbox and Gmail accounts, yet these
services are still reasonably secure if, like the average person, you trust
the service provider and are not the subject of an active investigation.

~~~
craftyguy
The NSA didn't obtain 'lawful access' to wiretap billions of
people/communications.

------
emayljames
Or: "US government releases PR press release to hide what facebook and the
secret services are really up to".

------
torgian
Bullshit. Facebook capitulated and have access. No doubt. They made backroom
deals.

Call me paranoid, but if the government wants something, there’s honestly
little anyone can do about it.

