Re:The FBI could have broken into San Bernadino shooter's ph...
by josefresco on Friday April 06, 2018 @10:20AM
(#16773402)
Like phone taps, electronic bugs and good old fashion in-person surveillance? How is that "dark" exactly? I expect privacy when I'm in my home, and on the telephone - did/do the FBI consider these off limits? They don't obviously, but how is this different?
Re:The FBI could have broken into San Bernadino shooter's ph...
by Slansitartop on Friday April 06, 2018 @11:06AM
(#16773782)
> Like phone taps, electronic bugs and good old fashion in-person surveillance? How is that "dark" exactly?
There was a time even before telephones and electronics.
I'm much more comfortable with law enforcement having to go back to using electronic bugs, in-person surveillance, and physical evidence gathering. Those things don't scale and don't have the security implications of their desired backdoors.
Re:The FBI could have broken into San Bernadino shooter's ph...
by josefresco on Friday April 06, 2018 @11:36AM
(#16774030)
> There was a time even before telephones and electronics.
Requiring law enforcement to use "pre electricity" technology only to catch thieves who are using cutting edge technology is incredibly naive.
I can understand the worry about scaling specifically, but talk about "handcuffing" law enforcement! Also, since phone-taps are scalable, they'd have to drop that too - which would leave them with quite a toolset /s
I can claim, with confidence, that "'going dark' isn't going to be 'that bad'" because we had successful police investigations before cell phones or encryption were even invented.
If criminals "go dark" the FBI is just going to have to re-learn old-fashioned police-work to catch them.