House Judiciary Releases Encryption Year End Report

[about_average]

https://judiciary.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/20161220EWGFINALReport.pdf

So far I've only skimmed it, but, surprisingly, I don't see anything completely outrageous in it.
At least they recognize the actual implications of back doors in encryption systems.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Seems to me, these two paragraphs from the report say it all:

Technology companies, civil society advocates, a number of federal agencies, and some members of the academic community argue that encryption protects
hundreds of millions of people against theft, fraud, and other criminal acts. Cryptography experts and information security professionals believe that it is
exceedingly difficult and impractical, if not impossible, to devise and implement a system that gives law enforcement exceptional access to encrypted data without also compromising security against hackers, industrial spies, and other malicious actors.

Further, requiring exceptional access to encrypted data would, by definition, prohibit some encryption design best practices, such as “forward secrecy,” from being implemented.

These two outlooks are not mutually exclusive. The widespread adoption of encryption poses a real challenge to the law enforcement community and
strong encryption is essential to both individual privacy and national security. A narrative that sets government agencies against private industry, or security interests against individual privacy, does not accurately reflect the complexity of the issue.

 

[about_average]

I do like this

Observation #1: Any measure that weakens encryption works against the national interest.

I'm not terribly worried about this

Can the government compel an individual to unlock his phone without violating the protection against self-incrimination guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution?

I use a complicated enough paraphrase that it would be easy to claim the stress of the situation is making me forget it.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

I do like this

I'm not terribly worried about thisI use a complicated enough paraphrase that it would be easy to claim the stress of the situation is making me forget it.

You may not be "worried" about the Fifth Amendment implications surrounding your locked phone, but it IS a valid Constitutional issue.

In fact, I was going to make an affirmative Fifth Amendment argument about locked phones, and then I found the interesting case of Doe v. United States (1988) wherein the Supreme Court (by an 8 to 1 majority!!) affirmed a government motion filed in Federal District Court directing the defendant to sign a consent directive, without identifying or acknowledging the existence of any account, authorizing the banks to disclose records of any and all accounts over which he had a right of withdrawal.

The motion was in order to circumvent the privacy policies of a FOREIGN BANK, the release of whose records the U. S. government could not compel. But the Court ruled that compelling the defendant to sign a consent directive (against his will, obviously) did NOT violate his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination. The Court ruling quite clearly endorsed the principle that self-incrimination is defined VERY NARROWLY as an oral or written testimony given to court officers as to specific incriminating FACTS rather than merely providing access to potential incriminating evidence.

Even more surprising to me was that the eight member majority included names like Harry Blackmun, Thurgood Marshall, William Brennan, Byron White and Sandra Day O'Connor in addition to conservatives Scalia and Rehnquist. So you can't lay this one on the "rightwingers."

But, man, did I just learn something.

 

[about_average]

You may not be "worried" about the Fifth Amendment implications surrounding your locked phone, but it IS a valid Constitutional issue.

Oh, I know it is, a major one IMO. I just meant from my potential personal situation.

In fact, I was going to make an affirmative Fifth Amendment argument about locked phones, and then I found the interesting case of Doe v. United States (1988) wherein the Supreme Court (by an 8 to 1 majority!!) affirmed a government motion filed in Federal District Court directing the defendant to sign a consent directive, without identifying or acknowledging the existence of any account, authorizing the banks to disclose records of any and all accounts over which he had a right of withdrawal.

The motion was in order to circumvent the privacy policies of a FOREIGN BANK, the release of whose records the U. S. government could not compel. But the Court ruled that compelling the defendant to sign a consent directive (against his will, obviously) did NOT violate his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination. The Court ruling quite clearly endorsed the principle that self-incrimination is defined VERY NARROWLY as an oral or written testimony given to court officers as to specific incriminating FACTS rather than merely providing access to potential incriminating evidence.

Even more surprising to me was that the eight member majority included names like Harry Blackmun, Thurgood Marshall, William Brennan, Byron White and Sandra Day O'Connor in addition to conservatives Scalia and Rehnquist. So you can't lay this one on the "rightwingers."

But, man, did I just learn something.

Well, that's frightening. I'd completely missed that ruling.
What makes you think I'd try to lay it on any political persuasion? Invasion of privacy knows no party.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Oh, I know it is, a major one IMO. I just meant from my potential personal situation.

Well, that's frightening. I'd completely missed that ruling.
What makes you think I'd try to lay it on any political persuasion? Invasion of privacy knows no party.

Oh, I didn't mean you specifically. Just the generic "you." As in, folks in general. Them. Us.