US Government Seeks Facebook Help To Wiretap Messenger, Report Says (reuters.com) 51
The U.S. government is trying to force Facebook to break the encryption in its popular Messenger app so law enforcement may listen to a suspect's voice conversations in a criminal probe, Reuters reported Friday, citing three people briefed on the case said, resurrecting the issue of whether companies can be compelled to alter their products to enable surveillance. From the report: The previously unreported case in a federal court in California is proceeding under seal, so no filings are publicly available, but the three people told Reuters that Facebook is contesting the U.S. Department of Justice's demand. The judge in the Messenger case heard arguments on Tuesday on a government motion to hold Facebook in contempt of court for refusing to carry out the surveillance request, according to the sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity.
I actually don't have a problem with this (Score:4, Interesting)
Facebook is a platform that can not be trusted. Everybody needs to know that.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's how freedoms are eroded. This would set a precedent that could then be applied to non-evil companies. You think the secret courts don't already have a back door? They're trying to get it in the front now.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Even the most trusted app "Signal" has this same problem.
Most people apply updates without a second thought. Most people can't understand a changelog let alone a source code diff, so developers just put "Bug fixes".
Any app can be updated to be not safe, even if it operates safely in 100% encrypted mode today.
Lay police work (Score:2)
Why can't they investigate like they used to. Its just to easy for them to sit on their ass and expect others to solve their problems for them. Just like most every one else these days.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, in their defense, the way the used to do it was to put a tap on a suspect's phone. According to Wikipedia [wikipedia.org], wiretapping has been around since the 1890s and was first used by the police in 1925.
So it's not like listening to telephone calls is this brand new thing.
Re: (Score:2)
What is brand new, is easy listening invasions of privacy. Before it took real effort and real resources and that generated constraints. Now nearly everyone, nearly all of the time and done by computers and very carefully and vary selectively edited, to basically stitch anyone up. When wire-tapping like this is done, the full record of all recorded information should be presented in court and heard and seen, not selective edits which will always be extremely misleading. So build up thousands of hours of wir
Re: (Score:2)
Well, in their defense, the way the used to do it was to put a tap on a suspect's phone. According to Wikipedia [wikipedia.org], wiretapping has been around since the 1890s and was first used by the police in 1925.
So it's not like listening to telephone calls is this brand new thing.
They are still welcome to do that or require Facebook to provide a copy of the data. What they want however is for Facebook to change its system preventing end-to-end encryption.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why can't they investigate like they used to. Its just to easy for them to sit on their ass and expect others to solve their problems for them. Just like most every one else these days.
Because they want to automate search and seizure. This is just the equivalent of tracking everybody using license place scanner, facial scanning, and cell phone location.
Also lazy (Score:5, Insightful)
The courts have the authority to compel people to testify and the authority to come into a place of business and gather evidence. I don't think it would be much of a stretch to force a company to allow government employees to alter code. That could happen and it should be something that is argued strenuously in the courts.
This kind of compulsion goes far beyond any reasonable argument. It's one thing to say the government can gather evidence or even take action in a private company. It's a whole different thing to try to compel a private citizen, or company who employs private citizens, to write software that goes against their best interest. It's really just tyranny, and lazy tyranny at that.
Re: (Score:2)
The courts have the authority to compel people to testify and the authority to come into a place of business and gather evidence. I don't think it would be much of a stretch to force a company to allow government employees to alter code. That could happen and it should be something that is argued strenuously in the courts.
This kind of compulsion goes far beyond any reasonable argument. It's one thing to say the government can gather evidence or even take action in a private company. It's a whole different thing to try to compel a private citizen, or company who employs private citizens, to write software that goes against their best interest. It's really just tyranny, and lazy tyranny at that.
I assume the government is arguing that it is covered by the All Writs Act [wikipedia.org].
No sarcasm here (Score:1)
You're describing exactly what the U.S. population decided they wanted two years ago. They wanted a totalitarian fascist for president, they got one.
43% of republicans said in a survey that they approve giving the POTUS the power to shut down any news outlet he wishes. If you have even a rudimentary knowledge of history, you know that that's how many totalitarian regimes started. Although that would be a clear violation of the 1st amendment, they know it, but they don't care. These republicans no longer car
Possibly just a coincidence... (Score:2)
... but about ten times until a few months ago, every single time that my Facebook Messenger app. updated, Telegram updated at the same time. Could they be the same or at least based on the same code? There is certainly no shortage of apps. that Facebook has bought and integrated.
If Messenger is actually a rebranded Telegram, then unless Facebook has the source code, Telegram has already refused to co-operate with these requests, and has been banned in a few countries (ie Russia and Pakistan) for this. And
Re: (Score:2)
Any source secret "secure" communication application that updates has this risk even if initially safe...
Seriously (Score:2)
What self respecting nefarious type monologues their " evil plan " over Facebook Messenger ?!
( or any online Social Media platform for that matter )
The ultimate shame in the underworld is to get caught and put in prison KNOWING THAT MARK ZUCKERBERG helped make it happen :|
Almost all criminals are STUPID (Score:2)
It's why they get caught in the first place. And, to be fair, the knowledge required to discover a secure alternative isn't trivial.
Re: (Score:1)
If they were smart, criminals would join the 'authority' team so they could commit horrific crimes 'in the name of freedom, security and democracy.'
Protocol a must! (Score:2)
In contempt (Score:3)
So the court is going to hold Facebook in contempt, just like the rest of us. The court is also going to throw 'Facebook' in jail ? Which peon is going to take the fall for the corp ? Can't Facebook just claim the its' 4th amendment right are being violated, or go with the ever popular 5th amendment protection because it might be considered a member of a conspiracy after the fact ?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Good Ol USA here. I am part indigenous American Aboriginal and part Welsh sand hog. One side of my family has been here for a long time and the other for a few generations, but both sides are familiar with the term and concept of peon or indentured.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
So the court is going to hold Facebook in contempt, just like the rest of us. The court is also going to throw 'Facebook' in jail ? Which peon is going to take the fall for the corp ? Can't Facebook just claim the its' 4th amendment right are being violated, or go with the ever popular 5th amendment protection because it might be considered a member of a conspiracy after the fact ?
The court holding Facebook in contempt is actually required for Facebook to contest the order. The same thing happened in the Apple case. Without being held in contempt, Facebook has no further standing to challenge the order.
Re:In contempt..backward logic (Score:2)
Other than simply not complying you mean ?
Re: (Score:2)
No, I mean warrants and the use of the All Writs Act are done ex parte so nobody has standing to contest them in court. If the subject (not Facebook) wants to contest them, they have to argue that the evidence should be suppressed later and Facebook is not the one being charged so they cannot do that; Facebook is just a third party.
Instead, in order to gain standing to contest the court order, Facebook *must* be found in contempt which means not following it. Apple had to do the same thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Ahh I get what you mean now. Thanks for the info.
Can I rename Alexa to Wiretap? (Score:2)
This is just the final push to control the last few things they can't (yet) tap effectively.
The fears of our youth are now the realities of our daily lives.
https://images-cdn.9gag.com/photo/a3MzOb5_700b.jpg
Hmm, can't make auto link work.