iPhone Encryption Annoys Authorities

FBI blasts Apple, Google for locking police out of phones

FBI Director James B. Comey sharply criticized Apple and Google on Thursday for developing forms of smartphone encryption so secure that law enforcement officials cannot easily gain access to information stored on the devices — even when they have valid search warrants.

U.S. attorney general criticizes Apple, Google data encryption

Holder said quick access to phone data can help law enforcement officers find and protect victims, such as those targeted by kidnappers and sexual predators.

These reactions from law enforcement officials are excellent endorsements for communication devices if you value privacy and the rule of law over expedience. Arguing for encryption or security that is easier to break is reprehensible and indefensible. For the authoritarian among us, consider this; open doors let anyone in, not just “the proper authorities”. Would you still feel okay about putting in back doors or deliberately weak encryption if a foreign power can use it to spy on Americans or perform corporate espionage?

Considering the extremely lenient approach both the Bush and Obama administrations have taken to overly-broad warrantless searches, the phrase, “even when they have valid search warrants,” is a telling note, albeit one implied by the authors of the Washington Post article and not directly quoted from FBI director, Comey.

Searching an encrypted phone is effectively no different from searching a locked safe or strongbox. Under existing laws and precedents, there must be a warrant that allows the search of the locked container and specifies what they expect to find in it. The container is itself considered property and in principle should not be damaged or destroyed in the search. According to the somewhat ambiguous case law so far, you may not be compelled to supply a combination to a safe or password to a computer that could lead to incriminating evidence.

(As far as I can tell biometric locks, like Touch ID on recent iPhones, are an even more ambiguous case than passwords. Your finger might be regarded as a “key” and you could be compelled to provide access to your finger in order to unlock your phone. That will have to be tested in the courts, I think. For the meantime, if you’re paranoid — or a criminal — you should probably not use Touch ID, and instead have a good passcode.)

People are becoming more cognizant of their behavior with regard to technology and are taking steps to bring it more into line with their “meat space” lives. Up to now, we’ve been sending postcards (email) with our return addresses written on them by effectively sticking them up on a public board (the unencrypted internet) for the next passer-by to deliver to its destination, trusting that no one will read the contents en route or backtrack us to our home address.

Using encryption for email is like putting a letter in an envelope. Locking your phone with a password is like keeping your private documents in a safe.

Now, law enforcement officials are complaining that it’s too hard to catch criminals when people lock their doors so that police can’t enter private homes freely when the owners are not present, use envelopes so no one can read private mail without having to tamper with it, and don’t use party lines so that no one else can listen in on their telephone conversations without a direct effort to do so. In short, law enforcement is losing the easy access to a great deal of information that people were in many cases unaware was being shared very publicly.

To those who argue that we should give up an expectation of privacy and abrogate some of our rights in order to make it easier to find and prosecute criminals, I reply with a quotation:

“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety” - Benjamin Franklin

Mainali Eyes Wrongful Imprisonment Suit Against Japan

“After my arrest, booted cops at Shibuya police station kicked me during interrogation and stepped on my toes. They said I came from an uncivilized country and that people from my country came to Japan only to rape, rob and murder,” Mainali, fuming with anger, recounted.

“They tore my clothes, banged by head against the wall, and made me sit for hours on a very tall stool until my legs were swollen.” According to Mainali, he was kept for interrogation from 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. and then put in a room that had a camera.

“I was unable to sleep because I knew someone was watching me,” he said.

Like I said before, you don't want to get arrested in Japan.

Mainali was arrested in 1997, but in 2000 the Tokyo District Court said that there wasn't conclusive evidence that he was the murderer. (Reading between the lines: probably the only evidence they had was a confession extracted under the conditions he described.) After another reversal by the Tokyo High Court, he was finally set free by [a lack of] DNA evidence tying him to the murder.

Boston Bombings

The Boston bombings provide a clear example of what I wrote about earlier when I said that legislative band-aids like firearms bans don't prevent mass killings. Someone who is determined enough will find a way to harm people. These two men didn't need guns to carry out their attack, though they used them later trying to escape. I doubt that registration and background checks would have prevented them from obtaining those guns either.

If anyone was actually interested in logical consistency, Americans would now start pushing for a ban on pressure cookers. After all, the only people who really need one are those who live at altitude. Maybe we should run background checks and require certification of residency at an altitude greater than 2,500 feet for pressure cooker purchases.

How about attempting to regulate black powder? Even if you track fireworks and model rocketry purchases (among other readily available sources of potentially explosive materials) you wouldn't be able to stop someone armed with fairly low-level knowledge and skill from making their own. Historical reenactment enthusiasts have even made black powder by hand, using historical techniques and raw materials like livestock urine, potash, wood charcoal, and sulfur. It's considerably easier to get the necessary ingredients now, in a modern industrial society, than it was when black powder was a military-grade material. There's even been some talk of taggants in commercial preparations, though that wouldn't matter until after the fact, when trying to track down where the materials for the bomb came from, and wouldn't help at all with homemade preparations.

Instead of focusing on the specific tools used in an attack, attention should always be directed toward intelligence gathering. This is the information age; information is paramount. Anyone with a knowledge of basic chemistry can make several different explosive materials in their garage easier than someone can cook up a batch of meth, and look how many tweekers seem to be able to manage that.

Granted, this particular kind of attack is one of the most difficult to detect. Lone nutjobs or small partnerships with no larger group affiliation or outside funding are brutally hard to find before they do something irrevocable.

Law enforcement maintains a tradition of secrecy regarding terrorism that is usually counterproductive. Help from the public has time and time again proven crucial for finding those responsible for attacks like these, before they can commit another attack. There should be more transparency and better information sharing from government agencies. Citizen training programs could also help in getting good-quality, timely information for investigating before and after attacks; providing more wheat and less chaff in citizen reports.

Panicking doesn't help. Legislation drafted while panicking certainly doesn't help. The most effective parts of the PATRIOT Act, for example, have been in interdepartmental information sharing, not the draconian provisions circumventing the Bill of Rights that allow actions like warrantless wiretaps, secret searches of property and the installation of spyware and keylogging software, or indefinite imprisonment without trial.

How do Americans win against terrorism?

By sharing information as openly as possible. The identification of the Boston bombers was made by the public, not through the gathering of secret surveillance or the use of high-tech facial recognition software.

By defying terrorists and not letting them manipulate us into the responses they desire. Every erosion of rights and freedoms makes our society less democratic and more authoritarian.

By not being scared. Fear was the motivating factor behind two major wars, huge changes for the worse in the American law and justice system, and hysterical counter-reactions of such ignorance that Sikhs worry that they're going to be the target of hate crimes when an attack by "possible Muslims" occurs.

Bans of X and Wars on Y do not work. They do not make us safer. They do not make us more free. They do not even allow us to more quickly apprehend the offenders after an attack. They do not improve our lives in any way.

Connecticut Shootings and Japanese Firearm Law

I’m going to express what is likely to be a very unpopular opinion: legislation-based gun control in the US will not work. The reasons other countries have lower crime rates have far more to do with differences in their societies and culture than any laws against firearms that are in place. The most wrong-headed “comparison” I’ve yet seen in the wake of the Connecticut shooting is looking to Japan as a positive example of a complete firearm ban that works. The first problem I have is in pointing to Japan’s minuscule double-digit firearm death figure as if it means something. Japan’s overall violent crime rate is about one tenth of that of the US’s, so even if you were just counting fistfights, Japan would look like a Sunday bingo game in a Florida rest home compared to complementary beer-and-crank night at a biker bar. It doesn’t mean anything in this context.

Is gun crime nearly non-existent in Japan? Yes. Is overall violent crime and murder lower in Japan? Dramatically yes. Does Japan still have shootings? Yes. Does Japan still have murders? Yes. Do they have some particularly grisly murders? You betcha.

If you really wanted Japan-style gun control to work, first you’d have to go back in time and subject Americans to a couple of hundred years under a repressive military regime that forcibly disarmed the entire populace, and kept everyone in line through brutal collective capital punishment if even one person in an area showed signs of resistance. Then you’d have to be willing to substantially change Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth Amendment rights, along with completely repealing the Second Amendment.

You’d also have to be willing to live in a police state. Lefties, if you thought the Patriot Act was an affront to civil rights, you haven’t really seen anything. Righties … well, better hope God helps you, because you would really not like Japan-style centralized and standardized homogeneity. Japan is a police state — an ostensibly friendly and community-oriented police state, but don’t fool yourself, the police are centrally organized, they have broad powers, and they explicitly function as a tool of the central government.

The social cost would be high, probably higher than any American would be willing to pay. One of trade offs the Japanese made for a peaceful society was a stifling level of social control on top of the strong, centrally organized police force. One side-effect of these social pressures is an adult suicide rate higher than virtually any other industrial country, usually at least double that of the US annual rate in any given year.

Associative guilt is part of the cultural landscape. If someone is accused of doing something wrong, everyone they know is automatically suspect of wrongdoing. It’s normal for parents to apologize publicly for crimes their children may be accused of, prior to any conviction. In fact, sufficiently abject apologies and expressions of remorse can lead to lenient sentences if convicted, or even dismissal of charges in some cases.

Friends and acquaintances will disassociate themselves from the accused. Just being accused of a crime — even without being convicted — can be grounds for dismissal from your job, and unlike the US, you will have few grounds for disputing it or collecting any civil damages. In some cases (like mine) your contract explicitly stipulates that an arrest will result in termination without recourse.

You don’t need to be guilty of anything to be arrested. This is why most people in Japanese society don’t even want to appear to be doing anything wrong. You don’t have to be convicted to destroy your life, you just have to look guilty enough to be arrested. You don’t bear the burden of an actual crime on your own, you affect your family, friends, and anyone who was known to be associated with you.

Youth crime is very low partly due to the school system, which has tiers of institutions. This means that almost everyone in their teens attends some kind of school, and they’re heavily supervised and controlled at school. Semi-mandatory involvement in club activities mean that school hours extend well into the evening. The universal use of school uniforms means that trouble-makers can often be quickly identified in the scant time the kids might have between school and home. Police involvement in the community is high, which also has a curbing effect on crime of any sort.

Conviction rates for prosecutions are disturbingly high. So, if you are actually prosecuted for a crime, you are going to prison. If you receive the death penalty, you will be hanged at some undetermined point in the future, and your family will be informed after the fact.

According to Article 38 of the post-War constitution, a criminal prosecution should not have a confession as its primary or only evidence. In practice, confessions are still key, and the lengths that police will go to in the extraction of a confession can be abusive, in contravention of international law, and bordering on actual torture in some cases. People have been deprived of food, beaten, deprived of sleep, questioned for hours or even days by shifts of interrogators, and forced to assume stress positions, just as a few examples. There were a couple of publicly embarrassing cases that may lead to reforms that will finally end these kinds of abuses. Eventually.

Even in the absence of actual abuse, you have very few rights if you’re being held by the police. In the most benign of circumstances, you will at least be isolated and subjected to prolonged and repeated interrogation without any advocate to support you. You probably will not be allowed to contact anyone at all to inform them of your whereabouts. You do have a right to counsel, but don’t have a right to have a lawyer present during questioning. Foreigners have complained of incompetent or inadequate translation from third-party translators — or of the complete absence of a neutral translator, having only one of the police officers serving as a translator — among other treatment that is frankly shocking to most Westerners.

You will be heavily pressured to sign a confession and will probably be told that signing a confession of guilt can expedite your release, even if you maintain that you are innocent. You can be held for up to two days without being charged with anything at all. Charges must be offered after this time, and this is usually when the person under arrest actually finds out what he or she was arrested for, and also when they are informed of the right to counsel. An optional petition to a judge for an extra 10 to 20 days is nearly always granted. The justice system is not an adversarial one like the US.

You are not presumed innocent.

The nitty-gritty of the actual steps you need to take to obtain a firearm seem almost lenient when you think about it in the background of the justice system. Dave Kopel did a full report on the rules in the 90s that is still probably the best English resource. First, you have to provide a reason for wanting a gun. Some of the things you must do to own a gun in Japan are: fill out volumes of paperwork, pass repeated interviews with police, provide proof positive that you’re not crazy, give a detailed map of where you store the guns, a key to the mandatory safe, and carte blanche to police to enter your home and search to confirm the presence of the guns and even count the ammunition at any time the police feel like it. In effect, you waive what Americans would consider your Fourth Amendment rights.

Gun violence is very low in Japan because no one but the government ever really had access to guns in the first place — a tradition that has continued for centuries. In theory, the Japanese Constitution provides protection of most of the same rights Americans are used to thinking of as the Bill of Rights. But because there is no tradition at all of personal rights, the Japanese people accept laws and customs that effectively contravene their constitutional rights, and that place restrictions on personal freedoms and privacy that Americans would never willingly live under.

And they still have shootings.

They also have incidents like:

  • A 12 year old girl who cut up another girl with a utility knife.
  • A teenager who cut off his mother’s head and carried it around with him until he was arrested at an internet cafe.
  • Various other stabbings and bludgeonings, including the infamous case of a 14 year old who cut off his 11 year old victim’s head and stuck it on the school gates.
  • A knife attack at a school in Osaka that left 8 children dead and 13 children and teachers wounded.
  • A combination truck and knife attack in Akihabara that killed 7 and injured 10.

No matter what you do, you’re not going to stop any and all massacres. Nothing, not even universal disarmament, broad police powers, and oppressive social control does. Not even in Japan. Would you be willing to make the necessary changes to American society and the legal system in addition to the feel-good band-aid of “banning” certain classes of firearms in order to actually make it work?

Personally, I think that if enough public sentiment pushes legislation through the system, we’ll end up with either severely curtailed rights — not just gun rights — or a level of civil disobedience and an associated crime boom the likes of which we haven’t seen since Prohibition.

Further reading on the police and justice system in Japan:

U.S. Police Walk Different Beat in Japan (PDF)

The Enigma of Japanese Power (Book)

Comparative Criminology: Japan

A couple of relatively recent articles on Japanese confessions, connected to the cases that led to calls for reforms, which have still largely not been implemented:

BBC News: ‘Forced Confessions’ in Japan

Japan Times: Court acquits man but kept lid on forced confession

Pachinko

Pia_Pachinko

Pia_Pachinko

Pachinko is big in Japan. It’s so pervasive that you can roughly gauge the health of the Japanese economy by how the pachinko parlors are doing. As far as I know, no one has made a pachinko index, but if you could get any kind of reliable information in that sector it would probably be a good way to forecast national economic trends. When I first came here about 10 years ago, many of the parlors built during the Bubble had been shut down and their corpses moldered amid the real-estate slump. As the economy settled over the next few years and began to recover new pachinko parlors were built, and some of the abandoned ones were remodeled and re-opened.

Certain forms of gambling have quasi-legal status in Japan. Officially, pachinko machines are “adult games,” not gambling. The police have a tendency to overlook those anonymous little windows mysteriously located near a pachinko parlor, where you can exchange tokens or prizes for cash. This selective blindness is certainly not a result of monetary or gift exchanges between the police and the yakuza who are often involved in running the parlors. No sir, there’s absolutely no culture of bribery in Japan. Politicians are not accused of misappropriation of funds on a regular basis, and businesses here absolutely do not engage in shady practices like hiring “entertainers” after a night of expensive drinking and dining for people they hope to influence. Nope, doesn’t happen.

Besides the stupidity of gambling in general (play long enough, and the odds will always favor the house), I personally loathe the pachinko parlors because they reek of cigarette smoke, they’re eye-searingly garish inside and out, and they’re LOUD.

How loud? This is what it sounds like when you walk through the doors of a pachinko parlor. To get the full effect, you’d have to have some serious speakers connected to your computer. If you don’t instinctively flinch when the doors open, the volume isn’t loud enough. That is the sound of hundreds of machines competing for your attention, and thousands of steel balls bouncing around the innards of the machines. All at the same time.