[ad_1]
The Department of Justice had sought to hold Facebook in contempt of refusing to make a request for surveillance. (Dado Ruvic / Reuters)
A Californian federal judge ruled this month that the government could not force Facebook to crack the encryption of its popular Messenger voice application in a criminal case where agents wanted to intercept the conversations of a suspect, according to several people familiar with 'case.
The decision, which remains sealed, dealt with a setback for the Justice Department, which sought to force Facebook to find ways to give it access to encrypted communications.
It is encouraging, however, that technology companies are trying to relieve the pressure of government to design their devices and services to support surveillance while developing stronger encryption to protect the privacy of their customers.
[FBI chief calls encryption a ‘major public safety issue’]
The legal battle arose from a survey conducted in the Eastern District of California on the MS-13 gang, a violent transnational criminal group that President Trump calls "animals." strict immigration policies.
The decision was reported Friday by the Reuters news agency.
Federal law requires telecom providers to build their systems with wiretap capabilities, but Facebook Messenger is not a legal service, the company said. The company has created Messenger with end-to-end encryption, which means that voice signals are encrypted during transit between phones and the company has no way to decode them.
Designing a way to give law enforcement access to Messenger voice calls would be expensive and expensive, and would go beyond the "technical assistance" provision of the wiretap law, Facebook said. The judge is tidy on the side of the company, according to people familiar with the case.
In August, the department sought to hold Facebook in contempt for refusing to follow up on its monitoring request, Reuters reported.
Facebook and the Department of Justice had no comments Friday.
The provision of the law on wiretapping states that the company "will provide technical assistance necessary to perform interception in a manner that is discreet and with a minimum of interference" in the service.
"The question that arises in these cases is often the following:" What is the minimum interference?
[FBI paid professional hackers one-time fee to crack San Bernardino iPhone]
The Fresno affair went quietly in contrast with high profile showdown in early 2016 between the Ministry of Justice and Apple. The government tried to force Apple into a dead terrorist locked iPhone as part of an investigation into the attack in San Bernardino, California, which killed 14 people and wounded 22 others.
In that case, the federal authorities ordered Apple to force him to deactivate a security feature that erases the phone data after 10 incorrect attempts to enter a password. Just before oral the arguments had to start, the FBI found a third Solution break the device and the department withdrew its motion.
The case has resumed a national discuss how to reconcile competing desires to protect public safety and protect the privacy of users. The Obama administration struggled with the question and have chosen not to enact legislation to force technology companies to incorporate monitoring capabilities into their services.
Under Trump, the Ministry of Justice adopts a more aggressive stance.
"Mandatory encryption is a serious problem," said Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein in a speech in October. "Technology companies will certainly not develop responsible encryption if they are delivered on their own," he said. "They sell products and make money. . . . We are preventing crime and saving lives. "
It did not propose specific policy proposals, but did not rule out legislation.
"The Internet and telecommunication companies are questioning the limits of" technical assistance "provisions and the ability of private sector engineers to solve the government's access problems," said Mieke. Eoyang, vice president of the national security program at Third Way, a center-left think tank.
"The ability of Congress to understand the technical challenges of being able to regulate effectively in this area raises very serious questions."
[ad_2]
Source link
