Irate Congressman gives cops easy rule: “just follow the damn Constitution”
Rep. Ted Lieu lambasts gov't request for more access to encrypted devices.
by Cyrus Farivar
- Apr 30, 2015 11:01 pm UTC
Despite the best efforts of law enforcement to convince a Congressional subcommittee that technology firms actually need to weaken encryption in order to serve the public interest, lawmakers were not having it.
Daniel Conley,
the district attorney in Suffolk County, Massachusetts, testified
Wednesday before the committee that companies like Apple and Google were
helping criminals by hardening encryption on their smartphones. He
echoed previous statements by the recently-departed Attorney General, Eric Holder.
"In America, we often say that none of us is above the law," Conley wrote in his
prepared testimony.
"But when unaccountable corporate interests place crucial evidence
beyond the legitimate reach of our courts, they are in fact placing
those who rape, defraud, assault and even kill in a position of profound
advantage over victims and society."
Rep. Ted Lieu (D-CA), who
described himself as a "recovering computer science major," provided one
of the most forceful counter-arguments. (He is just one of
four House members with computer science degrees.)
Lieu also is a Lieutenant Colonel in the United States Air Force
Reserves and served for four years as a member of the Judge Advocate
General’s Corps.
"It is clear to me that creating a pathway for decryption only for
good guys is technologically stupid, you just can't do that," he said,
underscoring that he found Conley’s remarks "offensive."
He argued:
It's a fundamental misunderstanding of the problem. Why
do you think Apple and Google are doing this? It's because the public is
demanding it. People like me: privacy advocates. A public does not want
an out-of-control surveillance state. It is the public that is asking
for this. Apple and Google didn't do this because they thought they
would make less money. This is a private sector response to government
overreach.
Then you make another statement that somehow these companies are not
credible because they collect private data. Here's the difference: Apple
and Google don't have coercive power. District attorneys do, the FBI
does, the NSA does, and to me it's very simple to draw a privacy balance
when it comes to law enforcement and privacy: just follow the damn
Constitution.
And because the NSA didn't do that and other law enforcement agencies
didn't do that, you're seeing a vast public reaction to this. Because
the NSA, your colleagues, have essentially violated the Fourth Amendment
rights of every American citizen for years by seizing all of our phone
records, by collecting our Internet traffic, that is now spilling over
to other aspects of law enforcement. And if you want to get this fixed, I
suggest you write to NSA: the FBI should tell the NSA, stop violating
our rights. And then maybe you might have much more of the public on the
side of supporting what law enforcement is asking for.
Then let me just conclude by saying I do agree with law enforcement
that we live in a dangerous world. And that's why our founders put in
the Constitution of the United States—that's why they put in the Fourth
Amendment. Because they understand that an Orwellian overreaching
federal government is one of the most dangerous things that this world
can have. I yield back.
Fundamental misunderstanding
Attorney general: "technological advances" allow criminals to "avoid detection."
When
Ars contacted Lieu after the Wednesday hearing he said that he was not
surprised at the testimony of Conley and others in law enforcement.
"They have a job to do and it is in their interest to make access to
data by law enforcement as easy as possible," he told Ars by e-mail.
"But I was surprised at their rhetoric stating that companies seeking
to protect and encrypt Americans’ data from unconstitutional government
intrusion are implicitly helping terrorists and criminals," he said.
"That view reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the issue.
Private-sector technology companies are responding to the American
people’s demand that our current out-of-control surveillance state be
brought under control."
When asked to elaborate on his "technologically stupid" comment regarding backdoors, Lieu wrote:
Backdoors create unnecessary vulnerability to otherwise
secure systems that can be exploited by bad actors. Backdoors are also
problematic because once one government asks for special treatment, then
other governments with fewer civil liberties protections will start
asking for special treatment. In addition, computer code is neutral and
unthinking. It cannot tell if the person typing on a keyboard trying to
access private data is the FBI Director, a hacker, or the leader of
Hamas as long as that person has the cryptographic key or other
unlocking code. The view that computer backdoors can only be used by
"good guys" reflects a lack of understanding of basic computer
technology.
But, when asked what steps Lieu takes in his personal or professional
life to protect his digital security, he simply responded: "That’s
private."
The entire hearing, which runs two hours and 15 minutes, is viewable here;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=597&v=YG0bUmuj4tg
Via/ http://arstechnica.com