TECHNOLOGY: The FBI Should Stop Attacking Encryption

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/03/fbi-should-stop-attacking-encryption-and-tell-congress-about-all-encrypted-phones

The FBI Should Stop Attacking Encryption and Tell Congress About All the Encrypted Phones It’s Already Hacking Into
BY JOE MUL

*** begin quote ***

The first step is to start keeping track of what’s happening. Congress should require that federal law enforcement agencies create detailed audit logs and screen recordings of digital searches. And we agree with Upturn that agencies nationwide should collect and publish aggregated information about how many phones were searched, and whether those searches involved warrants (with published warrant numbers), or so-called consent searches. Agencies should also disclose what tools were used for data extraction and analysis.

Congress should also consider placing sharp limits on when consent searches can take place at all. In our January blog post, we suggest that such searches be banned entirely in high-coercion settings like traffic stops, and suggest some specific limits that should be set in less-coercive settings.

*** end quote ***

As a little L libertarian, my first step would be “no warrant; no search”.  PERIOD!

—30—

LIBERTY: DNA ain’t like a fingerprint

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/12/time-supreme-court-weigh-forced-dna-collection

December 29, 2011
By Rebecca Jeschke
Time for Supreme Court to Weigh in on Forced DNA Collection

*** begin quote ***

Can the government force people who are arrested – but not yet convicted of a crime – to give a DNA sample without a search warrant, or does that violate the Fourth Amendment?  One arrestee is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to consider this important question, and this week EFF urged the court to take the case.

A federal law mandates DNA collection for those who have been arrested for felonies. The FBI analyzes the samples, and puts a profile into CODIS, a national database.  Those who aren’t eventually convicted of a crime can get their information removed if they request to do so, but data from other individuals remains indefinitely.  In this case from the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, U.S. v. Mitchell, the defendant argues that the DNA collection violates his Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures.

*** end quote ***

Clearly, it”s more than just a tool for “identification”.

As pointed out, it gives your heritage, your health, your health prospects, and who knows what else.

And, “arrested”; not “convicted”.

Also, do you really trust the Gooferment to do ANYTHING?

# – # – # – # – #