It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The FBI slams smartphone encryption because there's no backdoor

page: 1
27
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 28 2014 @ 04:56 AM
link   


FBI Director James Comey has, unsurprisingly, come out and slammed Apple, Google and other tech companies. Essentially the FBI seem to be concerned for offering encryption on devices such as smartphones. Comey said he was "very concerned" about strengthened encryption in mobile OSes, saying it could work against his organization in the event of a terror attack.

In his statement, Comey took issue with the marketing of smartphone OSes from major tech companies. By saying that their smartphone products could be encrypted without access by agencies like the FBI, Comey said it was like the companies were saying "buy our phone and law-enforcement, even with legal process, can never get access to it".


The FBI slams smartphone encryption because there's no backdoor



Seen this article and thought it may be of some interest.

Essentially the FBI seem to be concerned that the tech companies are offering proper encryption. So they all up in arms about having to do some damned work.




edit on 28-9-2014 by _BoneZ_ because: fixed URL link




posted on Sep, 28 2014 @ 05:04 AM
link   
What I read was blah blah blah, nothing to see here it. Grr on the manufactures who are "increasing" (nudge, nudge, wink, wink) stronger encryption. You're data is protected because Big Business LOVES you.


Enjoy your secure IPhone.


BTW, I hear there's a blowout sell on Saddam's nuclear weapons. Deep discounts, hurry while supplies last. A non-refundable deposit is required.
PM me for more details.

/sarcasm



posted on Sep, 28 2014 @ 05:20 AM
link   
Yeah right, more like they have full access and they are just trying to pull the wool over our eyes!

If so though good on these companies for once actually looking out for our privacy.



posted on Sep, 28 2014 @ 05:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sparta
Yeah right, more like they have full access and they are just trying to pull the wool over our eyes!

If so though good on these companies for once actually looking out for our privacy.


If that's the case they are only looking to secure your privacy so they may exploit it for their purposes and not the governments, by selling it to third party advertisers or selling the data mined to vendors, or to their own marketing departments..




posted on Sep, 28 2014 @ 05:30 AM
link   
a reply to: andy06shake

Here's an article explaining how modern Android phones can be encrypted by users.

How to encrypt your Android device


But let's not get too bent out of shape. We're here to share how you can encrypt your Android devices running the Jelly Bean and Kit Kat systems. That's right: Privacy features are already built in. You just need to turn them on.


Encrypting the traffic is another matter!

It's getting pretty slack when the FBI publicly complain that they can't access your information. It's really come that far that we're complacent and accepting that the world we live in no longer values privacy or presumed innocence. Some of us can remember the high horse we rode about the lack of freedoms in Cold War Soviet countries...we were on the side that was against invading the privacy of citizens.

Here we are and our society has more surveillance than at any time in history. So bad that the FBI can chastise private corporations for selling secure devices to a public marketplace.



posted on Sep, 28 2014 @ 05:48 AM
link   
Personally,I think this is a ruse,an act.Imo,there are no comms tech that will be allowed on the market,without backdoors,or some way to access the user's pesonal information and comms.a reply to: Kandinsky



posted on Sep, 28 2014 @ 05:48 AM
link   
i call a double bluff on this one,,,,title should be FBI pretend they cant hack encryption



posted on Sep, 28 2014 @ 06:03 AM
link   
a reply to: andy06shake

You see, this is where I find myself doubting the motives of organisations like the FBI in America, and any such organisation in the developed or developing world, who would come out and say something like this.

The encryption of mobile telecommunications, means that cyber criminals who hack phones, steal data from them, and sell that data on, will have a harder time accessing data illegally. That is the thing to take away from this. Obviously, if the FBI are really a law enforcement agency, rather than being an arm of the intelligence industry (which, last I checked, was not their role in the heirarchy of US government alphabet agencies), then they should be all for this, because it will mean they have to do less work, not more on the cyber crime aspect.

This means that they will be able to devote resources to serious, organised crime issues. It also means that the hackers employed directly by organised criminal enterprises, will be less able to gain revenue for their mob overlords, which in turn will weaken them. Better encryption will also prevent foreign agencies from gaining easy access to peoples smart phone data.

However, I believe that there is no back door in these new systems, about as much as I believe myself to be made entirely of marshmallow, and chocolate flavoured cake frosting. I think the chances are that this announcement is a bluff, and that the FBI have access to these phones, just as readily as they did into the older, less encrypted models.
I have no data to back that up, but I deduce, purely from the way the intelligence community has handled the communications companies in the past, that they would not have released a product which could not be broken open by the law enforcement (read Military Intelligence) agencies operating in the area of sale. I also believe that it would be good for the companies involved, and indeed for the intelligence gathering types, if everyone thought otherwise.

Money for the companies still in bed with the agencies, and information for the data hungry teeth of the FBI and NSA.



posted on Sep, 28 2014 @ 06:03 AM
link   
Apple just like Google/Microsoft/Facebook/Twitter and the other big names are all american, all financed by the CIA/NSA or we would have to conclude that only americans can write computer code.

I Would not trust Apple to encrypt my data any more than i trust Microsoft who has done all it can to stop TrueCrypt working on a windows base PCs.

Voice and data encryption will come that people can trust but it won't be coming from the USA any time soon but don't let me stop you spending $600 on a phone that you cannot even unplug the battery from and are screwed when the battery goes dead.



posted on Sep, 28 2014 @ 06:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Raxoxane

They still require access to the device itself. The encryption won't stop data traffic being snooped on and it won't prevent access to google servers, email servers or clouds. Neither will it prevent law enforcement from having access to texts, emails, snapchats or phonelogs. Those days are dead and gone.

It's just the physical device data that will be encrypted.

So it matters to the FBI that they might end up seizing someone's phone/device and being unable to access the files and data in there. In terrorist terms, a phone might have chemical weaponry pdfs on it or a spreadsheet listing contacts. In criminal terms, a money launderer might have similarly interesting evidence and be safe from exposure.

It's an imprisonable offence in the UK to withhold a passkey when asked by law enforcement and undoubtedly the same in the States. That alone will make most people compliant and have no impact at all on a serious criminal or committed extremist.

In relation to back doors? Who knows?!



posted on Sep, 28 2014 @ 06:20 AM
link   
There is no privacy. Not even on a smartphone.
Want to know what propaganda is?
It's the story the FBI tells you.
Your data is send across a network and the FBI will sniff you and will decipher it.

They only tell you what they want you to think.

Please don't feel safe on just your smartphone ... please don't feel safe using Thor.

If you want to feel safe:
Develop your own encryption and be sure to make it on a completely different base then the principles used by US or Nato intell.

....and then even it's just a matter of time before they will be able to decipher. So ... if you are a terrorist and you want to communicate?
Posting a written letter in code written bij someone else is probably your best bet.



posted on Sep, 28 2014 @ 06:45 AM
link   
a reply to: andy06shake

well, in a free market economy supply is driven by demand.

Take from that what you will. But consideration of such for the FBI should include finding out why this service is popular enough among the populace that it has now come to market in popular devices.



posted on Sep, 28 2014 @ 07:25 AM
link   
Let me try and shplain to ya'll what's going on here. Believe me or not ... makes no difference.

1. The government can decrypt anything. I know ... I've seen it.
2. Law prohibits them from arbitrarily doing so, especially if you're a U.S. citizen.
3. No law prohibits the government from compelling a business to turn your info over to them.
4. If they turn your # over to the government, the rules change, and you get owned.
5. The government thrives on this resource.
6. Apple doesn't have access to the decryption resources the government has.
7. Since Apple is stepping away, Uncle Sug has to start playing by the letter of the law, and life's not so easy anymore.

The rest is simple.

I imagine Apple went this route because BHO is making them pay more in taxes, isn't buying their products in bulk, or not enjoying some other break in govvie oversight that they used to enjoy.

Once Apple gets what they're strong arming the government for, your phone will be 'updated'.



posted on Sep, 28 2014 @ 07:40 AM
link   
a reply to: andy06shake

Hmmm, lets look at this.


Comey said he was "very concerned" about strengthened encryption in mobile OSes, saying it could work against his organization in the event of a terror attack.

In the event of an "attack" the phones are all jammed up and for the most part, useless.


Comey said it was like the companies were saying "buy our phone and law-enforcement, even with legal process, can never get access to it".


I think thats BS. They would never allow new products that aren't hackable on some level. That kind of announcement on their part is designed to put everyone back to talking more openly on their devices.

Whether you believe Snowden is real or not, his "revelations" about being monitored kind of ruined that.

Hence the announcement.

Ultimately, every new encryption is hackable.



posted on Sep, 28 2014 @ 07:52 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

"Ultimately, every new encryption is hackable."

And in theory i could win the lottery ten times running but within reason not all encrytion is hackable and HTTPS/SSL is being hacked by your ISP all time using man-in-middle fake certificates and you would know this if you did a Whois on the IPs that your ISP hijack and then server up HTTPS pages.

What we need is s new type of script that can be used to write custom encryption functions that gets uploaded to a server that acts as a proxy server for rendering data and then run the decryption code from home without ever having to upload that to the central server.

Even if they try to reverse engineer the code on the server then all they can do is read one persons data but that not going to work on millions of custom scripts.

SSL using a single private key means that our internet has a zillon locks and a single key will unlock them all, we have been taken for fools all along.



posted on Sep, 28 2014 @ 08:35 AM
link   
a reply to: VirusGuard

Thank you for that reply. I wish I understood all that better. I used to work computers in the field of emulators a long time ago.

I have also studied military radar to the degree that I understand counter and counter measures. History teaches us that (given enough time) every new innovation will eventually be defeated or overcome.

Whether by hacking or just plain "espionage", the secrets will eventually out. The system will be penetrated and the information sold to the highest bidder.

Like your personal encryption at home program. Unless you write it it will be somewhere out there in some domain code. In other words, not "private".

This is the best part…


SSL using a single private key means that our internet has a zillion locks and a single key will unlock them all, we have been taken for fools all along.


Have a nice day (sincere smiley face).



posted on Sep, 28 2014 @ 08:38 AM
link   
Scare you with the bogey man, then sell you bogey man protection. then claim the bogey man protection works so well, the bogey man is mad.

it's all a scam in my opinion.

Just like google having a finger in every new technological thing out there, from buying up boston robotics, to the new AI system they've acquired (to better find picture matches you understand), and at the same time giving us all free wifi on balloons.

"Here, look at this, its' free !!!"

one day, when the country of Google runs the planet, we will remember these days and think "wow, how did we not do something..."

I do like my android though. it has features and stuff.

edit on 28-9-2014 by sn0rch because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 28 2014 @ 08:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Snarl

I really don't see Google or Apple for that matter creating software that does not have a backdoor. Just because the FBI or other alphabet agency's are not privy to the information does not mean it does not exist. There will be some kind of security exploit, there always is.



posted on Sep, 28 2014 @ 08:44 AM
link   
I agree with you all. Apple might say they keep their legs crossed and don't give it away, but that doesn't mean the NSA doesn't just tear a new backdoor open and enter without consent.



posted on Sep, 28 2014 @ 08:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Kandinsky
You took the words right out of my mouth, sir. Next, we'll have the CIA and NSA whining.



new topics

top topics



 
27
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join