<div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 1:06 PM, Jerry Leichter <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:leichter@lrw.com" target="_blank">leichter@lrw.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">From <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/13/us/politics/whatsapp-encryption-said-to-stymie-wiretap-order.html?_r=0&pagewanted=all" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/13/us/politics/whatsapp-encryption-said-to-stymie-wiretap-order.html?_r=0&pagewanted=all</a><br>
<br>
WASHINGTON — While the Justice Department wages a public fight with Apple over access to a locked iPhone, government officials are privately debating how to resolve a prolonged standoff with another technology company, WhatsApp, over access to its popular instant messaging application, officials and others involved in the case said.</blockquote><div>..... </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
The Justice Department and WhatsApp declined to comment. The government officials and others who discussed the dispute did so on condition of anonymity because the wiretap order and all the information associated with it were under seal. The nature of the case was not clear, except that officials said it was not a terrorism investigation. The location of the investigation was also unclear.<br></blockquote><div>Hmmm.... secrets.</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
To understand the battle lines, </blockquote><div>....</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
Some investigators view the WhatsApp issue as even more significant than the one over locked phones because it goes to the heart of the future of wiretapping. </blockquote><div>.... </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
Whether the WhatsApp dispute ends in a court fight that sets precedents, many law enforcement officials and security experts say that such a case may be inevitable because the nation’s wiretapping laws were last updated a generation ago, when people communicated by landline telephones that were easy to tap.<br>
<br>
“The F.B.I. and the Justice Department are just choosing the exact circumstance to pick the fight that looks the best for them,” said Peter Eckersley, the chief computer scientist at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a nonprofit group that focuses on digital rights. “They’re waiting for the case that makes the demand look reasonable.”<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Two important issues.</div><div> *) how wide can the net be cast.</div><div> *) a reasonable circumstance can result in unreasonable law (second or third level consequences.)</div><div><br></div><div>As fisherman are demonstrating on the open sea some fishing methods kill an astounding </div><div>numbers of non food wildlife. <a href="http://www.fao.org/fishery/geartype/249/en">http://www.fao.org/fishery/geartype/249/en</a> Dolphins, turtles</div><div>endangered species. Other nets cause damage to coral and the sea bed.<br>Overfishing is another global risk. International laws and agreements attempt to maintain</div><div>the shared commons but loss of breeding habitat in mangrove swamps, streams and rivers </div><div>for fish like salmon and steelhead trout also risk collapse of the fisheries.<br><br>An unreasonable law can place undue burden on businesses and innovators. Regulations that</div><div>would control the Facebook and Apple may delay or eliminate startup innovation that would solve</div><div>the honest concerns of law enforcement or move innovation outside the rule of US law.<br>Regulations could inhibit the repair of flaws. </div><div><br></div><div>The current strategy seems to dig deep into the connection tree of interesting criminals.<br>It is unclear how the tree is pruned. On the surface of a big data perspective there does</div><div>not seem to be a need to prune the list at all. Without honest and effective pruning of search</div><div>it seems ripe for abuse and problematic in the context of parallel reconstruction.<br><br>In the current San Bernadino case there the iPhone question does not seem </div><div>to be more than a case where the demand seems to be reasonable because of the visceral</div><div>response to the crime. </div><div><br></div><div>The lack of reasonable expectation for useful content seems one reason for the court to </div><div>reject the order. Sadly this court may infact be wallowing in their self importance bolstered </div><div>by the apparent importance of the case to the detriment of the law. </div><div>The case is important but it an honest man might ask if it is being held up</div><div>as important as a lever to pry open all iPhones rather than an honest pursuit</div><div>of justice associated with this criminal act.</div><div>i.e. not clearly <span style="color:rgb(37,37,37);font-family:sans-serif;font-size:14px;line-height:22.4px">"agreeable to the usages and principles of law."</span><br><br><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div> <br></div><div><br></div></div><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"> T o m M i t c h e l l</div></div>
</div></div>