US Says It Would Use 'Court System' Again To Defeat Encryption (arstechnica.com) 232
An anonymous reader shares an Ars Technica report: U.S. government officials from the FBI director down have said repeatedly that the FBI-Apple legal brouhaha was just about a single phone -- the seized iPhone used by Syed Farook, one of the San Bernardino shooters. And just last week, James Comey, the FBI director, said his fight with Apple wasn't about setting precedent; rather, it was about battling terrorism. But it seems that the storyline has changed. The Justice Department now says it will not hesitate to invoke the precedent it won in its iPhone unlocking case. Having won the court and technological battle a triumphant Department of Justice warned late Monday that its legal battle for what many say amounts to judicially ordered encryption backdoors has only just begun. "It remains a priority for the government to ensure that law enforcement can obtain crucial digital information to protect national security and public safety, either with cooperation from relevant parties, or through the court system when cooperation fails," Melanie Newman, a Justice Department spokesman, wrote in an e-mail to Ars. "We will continue to pursue all available options for this mission, including seeking the cooperation of manufacturers and relying upon the creativity of both the public and private sectors."
I think you missed a few letters there (Score:4, Interesting)
Add the letters "ab" to the front of "use" and you'll get a better idea of what the FBI appears to want to do with the courts in this case...
Re:I think you missed a few letters there (Score:5, Insightful)
"Abuse" perhaps. But more than that, DELUSION . In reality the FBI has won no precedent, and in fact backed out because the precedent was going to go against them.
These platitudes and pontifications are nothing more than "PR" from the FBI that knows very well they would have lost in a specular way that would have negatively colored EVERY SINGLE "next" case.
Fact is, the FBI whimpered away with their tail between their legs and is trying to make the best of it.
Re: (Score:2)
Really. This article is nothing less than delusional. Is Ars Technica just taking dictation from the FBI now?
Re: (Score:2)
"It remains a priority for the government to ensure that law enforcement can obtain crucial digital information to protect national security and public safety, either with cooperation from relevant parties, or through the court system when cooperation fails,"
How do they define "crucial"? I mean, you don't know if there's any relevant information on that phone, so how can one define such unknown information as "crucial"?
Also, protecting "national security and public safety" should be a proactive act. Scouring through their phones AFTER the motherfuckers did their act is anything but proactive.
Re: (Score:3)
Also, protecting "national security and public safety" should be a proactive act.
From that line of thinking we get ideas like PRISM. No. Just no.
The only way to proactively stop someone from committing a crime is to invade their privacy. But you don't know who's privacy to invade until you've already done it. Therefore we must invade everyone's privacy!
But that's OK because we all trust the government to be good, honest and inhumanly capable of securing their databases, right? Those silly constitution writers didn't know what they were talking about when they made that fourth amend
Re: (Score:2)
Actually there is only one way to stop crime. That is accepting the reality of the situation, crime is the result of poor breeding choices, poor parenting skills and poor educational opportunities. Seriously want to end crime then those three sides of the crime triangle need to be tackled, fail at any one and crime will persist and victims will continue to be created.
So is this really about ending crime or just more rich versus poor laws. Rich get privacy and the rich get to invade the privacy of the poo
Re: (Score:2)
I was talking about preventing crime by helping make society better.
When large swaths of population with high crime risk aren't helped integrate or better themselves, it's only expected for them to turn to crime.
Re: (Score:3)
It's a Chinese law so it's a bit different than a police force just saying "give me access."
http://betanews.com/2015/12/27... [betanews.com]
Apple said that the FBI was asking for more than even China has asked for.
http://www.theguardian.com/tec... [theguardian.com]
Obvious (Score:2, Interesting)
There are still people who believes government lies.
It was obvious right from the beginning that it wasn't about one phone. Enjoy what remain of your privacy while you can.
Now, can I have my +5 mod? Well, I am AC, so I will probably get beaten to it by a logged-in user with a karma bonus.
Re:Obvious (Score:4, Insightful)
There are still people who believes government lies.
That would be anybody who votes for a republican or democrat. A little over 98% according to the last numbers. And they are digging in their heels when challenged over it.
Re: (Score:2)
No, those are the people who believe politicians, or those who understand the unfortunate math behind the US voting system.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
We make the math. The system is us. If it is "broken", it means we are.
Re: (Score:2)
"The unfortunate math?" Why is the math so unlucky? Why are we leaving it that way?
Re: (Score:2)
Oh I can't wait for the left to realize how it got suckered when an administration (after Citizen's United gets overturned) uses the US Marshall Service to physically stop the presses or to gather up all the printed copies of a book already printed because said administration does not like how unflattering it paints the administration. That is one of the "remedies" the Obama administration admitted to wanting in this case. It is all there, in black and white, open for anybody willing to actually pull their
Re: (Score:2)
Or Green or independent or any other label you want to apply. "Government" is made up of many people, not all of whom are even voted for (hell not even most,) and at least some proportion of which are going to be dicks because power draws assholes like moths to a flame.
Even if you have one favored candidate up on your little pedestal and even if they're actually as awesome as you proclaim, there's a whole shitload of other people waiting to fill in the dickery slot for them and those people come from all p
Re: (Score:2)
I agree that the reelection rate is worrisome, but (a) it is possible to fuck something up and learn from that mistake, and (b) there's no reason one person can't be the best available choice for several terms.
Re: (Score:2)
It's impossible to know what's true and decide that the best course of action is to vote for a Republican or Democrat? Frequently the third party candidates all seem worse to me than at least one of the major party candidates.
Huh? (Score:3, Interesting)
So now the FBI is claiming they won the court battle? Shameless.
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
The case didn't complete the challenge, but at the same time, there was no ruling, so there is only one ruling at this time: the court order compelling Apple to cooperate.
So, they didn't actually win the war, but they do have a solid tactical victory under their belts that they could turn strategic under the right circumstances. They may have backed off their offensive this time, but they're still in possession of the battlefield and the territory behind it where they can launch an attack from in the future, at their leisure.
So, for some value of winning, they *have* won something, just not everything all at once.
Re: (Score:2)
This is a tactical defeat for the FBI, as they got neither compliance nor a precedent. The strategic case, as you say, still remains open
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
That sounds completely in line to be honest, since those ransomware programs are using strong encryption to do their work, and the FBI is all about stamping out strong encryption. I'm surprised they don't try to bring that out as a talking point.. maybe not in this Apple case (since Apple would rightly question how the fuck that's related) but in their more general anti-encryption stance.
I mean it would be bullshit of course.. its not like all the laws in the world would convince the ransomware people to s
Re: (Score:3)
You're missing the big picture. This was a Triumph for them in that the case ended up with no ruling in a situation where public sentiment was being stirred against the government stance. This means they're free to continue to bring it up in this fashion again and again until it occurs at a time when the majority is distracted by the Kardashian's dog being run over or something and the precedent they want to build gets through the courts.
Any time it looks like the end result would be a ruling in favor of th
Re: (Score:2)
An uncontested court action isn't a precedent. If the FBI comes back with another court order, Apple will file the same objections, so the FBI made no headway. What we know is that the FBI managed to get one judge to issue a potentially overreaching court order, not that it would stand up to any challenge.
Precedent? (Score:5, Interesting)
Did the FBI just get one judge to issue an illegal order, then they withdrew the case while that order was under appeal, and claim a precedent-setting win?
Re:Precedent? (Score:4, Insightful)
They have experience from doing this for Vietnam and Afghanistan too.
Re:Precedent? (Score:4, Informative)
Yes. It's the "Mission Accomplished" [wikipedia.org] strategy.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Did the FBI just get one judge to issue an illegal order, then they withdrew the case while that order was under appeal, and claim a precedent-setting win?
I don't see that the feds used the term "legal precedent", but that's clearly the impression they want to give.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The precedent was set long ago, that slashdot summaries can and will be crap and that people will react is if they are absolutely true.
Re: (Score:2)
Did the FBI just get one judge to issue an illegal order, then they withdrew the case while that order was under appeal, and claim a precedent-setting win?
I doubt the order they got was "illegal" as you say. Just because you don't like it, that doesn't make it "illegal". But yes, the article has a link to another article that says that the FBI got a federal judge in Riverside, California to give them an order mandating that Apple create a custom firmware file. It happened almost 2 weeks ago and this is the first I'm hearing about it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt the order they got was "illegal" as you say. Just because you don't like it, that doesn't make it "illegal". But yes, the article has a link to another article that says that the FBI got a federal judge in Riverside, California to give them an order mandating that Apple create a custom firmware file. It happened almost 2 weeks ago and this is the first I'm hearing about it.
You might want to consider changing your news sources, as the court order was issued in February, and this has been extensively covered, up to and including a Congressional hearing on March 1.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple was going to argue that it was illegal, and then the FBI dropped the matter. If the FBI was confident that the order would stand, they would have gone ahead with the action. Getting Apple to go along with the FBI demands would have been much more useful for the FBI than paying an Israeli firm to break the phone.
Not exactly (Score:4, Insightful)
Did the FBI just get one judge to issue an illegal order, then they withdrew the case while that order was under appeal, and claim a precedent-setting win?
Claiming a win? Sure, because you have people with careers having the biggest-profile case in their life who want to keep their jobs and careers from taking a black mark. Realistically it was sort of a draw and sort of a "let's back the hell off because we might lose this one right now..."
But not exactly on the order. The order wasn't illegal; it's just that it basically issued but Apple could challenge it legally. The briefing to the magistrate judge (which was basically the government vs. the entire tech industry, and was maybe the most extensively briefed issue at the magistrate level in history), would have been the place where it was decided in the first instance, with appeals from there to the district court judge, the court of appeals, and then a petition for (and likely grant of) a writ of certiorari from the Supreme Court, where we would have gotten an answer that would probably change when Congress changed the law.
Re:Precedent? (Score:4, Insightful)
Seems Apple should be able to sue the FBI at this point to request a declaratory judgement against their order, due to the harm it does them to have the question about this order still left open...
My question exactly! (Score:2)
I KNEW IT! (Score:2)
Shorter version (Score:3)
Laws and rules exist so we can rule over you. If you won't bend a knee, we'll break it. And make no mistake, we're accountable to no one. That's the attitude throughout the US government.
Surprised? (Score:5, Informative)
Of course you aren't. Everyone who isn't in the government was saying this since the FBI first demanded it.
But the real terrorists do not use encryption like that. They don't have to.
The government is trying to push the narrative that the world is just like a Hollywood movie. It isn't. We do not need to give up our privacy so that the government can fight the "bad" men.
When you weaken encryption, you just make the "good" people more vulnerable to criminals.
Re: (Score:2)
My understanding is that DAESH / Al Quaida have both gone hard-core on their message security. The ones that don't tend to wind up dead.
patriot act 2 will fix this! (Score:2)
patriot act 2 will fix this!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
With extreme waterboarding! With trump.
DMCA (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's an Israeli company, so they likely don't have any recourse.
I can't wait until the US guv'munt outlaws encryption on all our phones, then we'll have to go to the Chinese to get our encryption software. I wonder what Alanis Morissette has to say about that.
Re:DMCA (Score:4, Insightful)
Here comes a public relations war ... (Score:3)
Both Apple & the government of the USA have learned from the recent spat, partly on the technical front and also on how to present their case in the court of public opinion.
Apple will further remove its ability to break into encrypted 'phones but as importantly be able to paint in bad colours any government that tries to make it do such things. This is assuming that this was not for show to fool ''undesirables'' that Apple 'phones are safe - something that would benefit Apple (more sales) and the government (more good data on the 'phones that it cracks).
The government will look for an even more compelling case so that it can accuse Apple of helping terrorists/paedophiles/... and so win the legal case that sets precedent or be able to pass laws that let it do so.
Hopefully... (Score:3)
...the makers of devices and encryption software will fight the US with every fiber of their beings...
Re: (Score:2)
...the makers of devices and encryption software will fight the US with every fiber of their beings...
At least until they decide that life is just easier offshore somewhere in which case they'll sell compromised phones into the US market leaving the rest of the world (relatively) secure.
I mean, on top of the tax benefits they already get from being outside the US.
Re: (Score:2)
Problem with that is just about every other government around the world is turning fascist and demanding these sorts of backdoors and ramping up the spying on their own citizens too
Re: (Score:2)
Problem with that is just about every other government around the world is turning fascist and demanding these sorts of backdoors and ramping up the spying on their own citizens too
Not at all. There are tons of poor/small countries who are perfectly willing to ask nothing at all in exchange for some amount of money that for the poor/small country is huge but is nothing compared to the taxes that the company 'saves' on.
Re: Hopefully... (Score:3, Insightful)
Lavabit honorably shut down rather than compromise its users. As far as I'm aware, that was the only legal and ethical way to satisfy the demand for the private keys.
How is this different from any normal safe? (Score:2, Interesting)
Out of curiosity are all safe manufacturers in the United States required to provided master keys to all of their locking mechanisms to the FBI? If a criminal happens to throw some important evidence in a safe do they go after the safe manufacturers?
I was under the impression that the FBI brought in a professional to crack the safe for them. Or if they were really desperate they just blew the thing up knowing that they might damage the contents. Doesn't the same apply here?
Re: (Score:2)
Most safes can be cracked with sufficient time. (either picking them if keyed, or trying every permutation if it's a combination lock).
I don't know enough about safes to know if any of the electronic locks do anything to slow down how fast you can enter the combo if you fail it too many times ... but as many of 'em are vulnerable to a strong magnet, it might not be an issue.
Most high-end safes that have protection to defend against drilling (ie, trying to bypass the locks), where doing so would break a pie
a.k.a. Clipper Chip 2.0 (Score:2)
.... What's old is new again!
Re: (Score:2)
The Clipper chip was in final development long before a Democrat took the White House in 1993... Those things don't pop out of nowhere.
Now I don't think the party of the president has a huge bearing on what those 3 letter agencies try to do.... but I can attest to a Republican presidency that shoved the PATRIOT Act down our throats.
and when you're a vitim of idenity theft... (Score:3, Insightful)
And you call the FBI to report it, they don't do anything.
They want weak encryption (or no encryption) that is easily cracked, with plenty of backdoors, and then when criminals expose these weaknesses, the government does nothing to protect the citizens from crime.
But hey, shoot up a private party, and as long as you have a funny-sounding name and vaguely brownish skin color, then the government wants to protect you, at any cost.
Of course, double standard -- if you're a white christian male and you shoot up a school full of kids, the response is "hey, shit happens", and the government does nothing.
Really, this country is fucked. Completely.
Huh? (Score:2)
But hey, shoot up a private party, and as long as you have a funny-sounding name and vaguely brownish skin color, then the government wants to protect you, at any cost.
So the government protects you if you're a minority. And that's bad.
Of course, double standard -- if you're a white christian male and you shoot up a school full of kids, the response is "hey, shit happens", and the government does nothing.
Really, this country is fucked. Completely.
But the government protects you if you're a white Christian male. And that's bad.
So wait ... what was your point again?
Re: (Score:2)
"But hey, shoot up a private party, and as long as you have a funny-sounding name and vaguely brownish skin color, then the government wants to protect you, at any cost."
Bullshit.
"Of course, double standard -- if you're a white christian male and you shoot up a school full of kids, the response is "hey, shit happens", and the government does nothing."
Again Bullshit.
But don't let reality get in the way of your rant.
Ruling? Which ruling? (Score:2)
Shit got vacated. That means the court order they obtained in the Farook iPhone case is null and void.
They talking about the weak one they got in New York? Yea, that one won't fly very far, either.
Re: (Score:3)
Doesn't matter. The order might be vacated, but the decision that allowed it is still on the books. The order is vacated because it was no longer desired to be enforced. That didn't change the premise under which the order was granted.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it does matter. For all intents and purposes, as this case was VACATED, *IT NEVER HAPPENED.*
They can't point to this case as any sort of precedent, PERIOD. Legally, IT DOES NOT EXIST.
Great (Score:5, Insightful)
U.S. government forces Microsoft and Apple to put backdoors into their products equals nobody buying anything from these two American companies anymore.
The U.S. government is destroying its own economy!
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah good luck with that.
More like equals 1% of people not buying anything from those two companies anymore. Most people have no idea what the hell encryption is, how it works, or why we can't just let the FBI do their job.. computers are exactly like cars after all, right? Or door locks or something we understand and just works and we don't need to think about it while we get back to surfing for cats and porn.
And of the people who do understand the issues, switching to a whole different OS, losing all of
Regulating the wrong device (Score:5, Informative)
Gee. if only the FBI put as much work into making sure automatic weapons don't get into the hands of criminals as much as they worried about telephones getting into the hands of criminals.
Re:Regulating the wrong device (Score:4, Informative)
That would require the FBI to investigate their sister service the ATF, who was caught not too long ago smuggling firearms to Mexican drug cartels.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Trump is non-establishment?
The guy has been buying off politicians for decades and he has openly bragged about it. He had the Clintons come to his daughter's wedding. He has been involved in political parties in the past - all of them - whatever suited his needs at the time.
The guy has plenty of establishment ties. If you believe he doesn't then you're falling for his "Hope and Change 2.0" campaign.
Re: (Score:2)
The Australian PM recently got into hot water by waffling on about 'Continuity and Change', stolen straight from Julia Louis-Dreyfus.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Gee. if only the FBI put as much work into making sure automatic weapons don't get into the hands of criminals as much as they worried about telephones getting into the hands of criminals.
What makes you think that they don't use the same amount of effort? It seems like they've had about the same level of actual success, which is to say, very limited success.
Re: (Score:2)
Gee. if only the FBI put as much work into making sure automatic weapons don't get into the hands of criminals as much as they worried about telephones getting into the hands of criminals.
Well, given the fact that no crimes or acts of terrorism are committed with automatic weapons in the US, you can't really say they've got that wrong. If you want to talk about semi-automatic weapons then at least there's a discussion to be had, but not automatics.
I don't doubt it (Score:3)
Are some people naive about this? (Score:4, Informative)
We already know secret courts have approved things "for the benfit of the people" to protect them.
The various elements of the US government are already doing the things they wish to "make legal".
It's not about terrorism or even about setting a precedent because that already happened "legally", in a court ruling you never knew existed. IMHO this is about saving face and following the "proper channels" to act in a manner that is acceptable by the multitudes.
You think all the money, time and effort put into mass surveillance and weakening encryption is just going to go away because it's no legal? it wasn't legal to begin with but it happened.
They want to go through a regular court, backed by "the people" (preferably by popular consensus) that will give them the power they already have so next time it will all be legal and "acceptable" because Joe Sixpack agreed.
They will try again and again in many guises until it becomes law. It would have been pushed regardless of who you voted for because you have no vote in matters of security. It cannot be discussed because we're being protected in our name, against our will.
Slashdot Is Pegging My Blood Pressure!! (Score:2)
Bollocks (Score:2)
This just gives Apple the push it needs to make the next gen of phones even more secure than the 5S, 6 and 6S.
The FBI thought they had it easy using Cellibrite to unlock a 5C which doesn't even have a dedicated encryption chip, they've got another thing coming.
A couple of things. (Score:2)
Soviet Amerika Explained (Score:2)
Who needs pesky laws when you have a court system in your back pocket.
Can't tell a loss when he hears it (Score:2)
Apple refused to sabotage their equipment. The courts refused to order them to do so.
They proved they didn't need to sabotage the software. Demonstrating lie to their own words.
Now this idiot thinks he can still win? The more he pushes, the more we will push back. Better for him to leave it up in the air without a legal ruling declaring his desired actions unconstitional.
If he pushes more, we will push back and he will find himself wearing uncomfortable restrictions ordered by the SCOTUS.
Use of quote marks. (Score:2)
I'm not sure why "court system" is in quotes in the headline, but I like how it implies the courts are a sham really when it comes to the government wanting to get its way to fight "terrorism".
Here is the problem for the FBI: (Score:3)
the justice department has become the terrorists.
"Again"? (Score:2)
"US Says It Would Use 'Court System' Again To Defeat Encryption"
Yet, the failed. There is no "Again" since they did not use the court system to defeat the encryption. This is all just PR and spin propaganda about their failure and intimidation tactics. I'd love to see the Supreme Court reach down and nail this government vampire with a wooden stake to kill government overreach and abuse of powers. Dreaming...
Would They Lie More Next Time? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
On further reflection, perhaps a 3 key system. All individualized. 1 key held by you, 1 by Apple and 1 by government. Any 2 can be used to decyrpt the data at rest on your phone.
Re: (Score:2)
Now why would I ever buy a phone like that??
Re: (Score:2)
You wouldn't. Which is why they outlaw all phones that don't comply and make it so that non-compliant phones can't access the network.
Re: (Score:2)
Besides the terrible idea that the govt + Apple can unlock it without my permission, they can also prevent me from being able to unlock it myself.
-5 WTF Is He Smoking
Re: (Score:2)
As some have commented will all US paper shredder brands https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] have to provide expensive unshredding support via a scanner, software and be able to put the cut paper back together as a readable document on gov demand for f
Re: (Score:2)
This is technically possible yes.
The problem is when someone hacks the government server and just takes all of the keys.
By necessity there needs to be some way to identify which key belongs to which phone, so you've simply reduced the problem set from getting a single key to getting a database of keys.
And that might not even be an improvement. A single key could in principle be kept purely on paper in a safe at the FBI and all digital copies destroyed immediately after printing whereas that would be imprac
Re: (Score:2)
A couple of things.
First, firearms are already pretty heavily regulated (i.e. handguns, assault weapons, ammo gauge, military grade firepower)
Second, the government already has a long standing ability to search and seizure through proper channels. What makes a phone different?
IMO, there is definitely room for compromise here.
Re: (Score:2)
Second, the government already has a long standing ability to search and seizure through proper channels.
Exactly. These legal battles are trying to redefine "proper channels" to be "whenever we damn well feel like it."
BOHICA
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What makes a phone different?
Math, scale of the install base and the fact that the internet exists. The math guarantees that once a key is known, there's no limits to it. The scale of the install base means knowing keys to one phone is almost equivalent to a universal privacy invasion and the fact that the internet exists means separate keys for each phone isn't significantly different from a single key (the key needed to log into the database storing the other keys.)
Of those, the internet issue is by far the easiest to work around -
Re:Dont worry were woring on it. (Score:5, Funny)
Not sure if a word in your subject line is missing a "k" or an "h"...
Re: (Score:2)
They withdrew their enforcement action of that one order. The order itself, never having been quashed, is thus considered to have stood, albeit it was never enforced. Only actual decisions are precedent, not cases that never made it to judgement.
There is still a decision on the books which gave them the order which would only be contradicted by another actual ruling, such as if they had had gone to judgement and lost on appeal. The fact that they decided not to continue to pursue enforcement doesn't mean
Re: (Score:2)
Only actual decisions are precedent, not cases that never made it to judgement.
Precedent is set in the appellate courts. The one court order creates no precedent.
Re: (Score:2)
AIUI, but IANAL, binding precedent is set in circuit courts. Any court decision can be a precedent that a lawyer can argue from, but the court doesn't have to agree with non-binding precedent.
Re: (Score:3)
All they need now is a "Mission Accomplished!" banner.
Re: (Score:2)
I make X dollars a year. If I could get that in any other valuable object than dollars (gold, diamonds, goats), I would have to know the dollar equivalent and file income taxes on it. At tax time, I'd have to convert my bitcoin or whatever into dollars, since the government doesn't accept collectible bottle caps or anything besides dollars as tax payments.
There are small economic systems that don't use dollars and don't report as legally required, but if they got too large the IRS would crack down on t
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, idiot, just make friends with farmers. Gasoline farmers, rental property farmers, bread farmers, beer farmers, insurance farmers, electricity farmers, sewage treatment farmers, trash can farmers. You know, farmers! When it's time to pay your mortgage you put a gold bar in an envelope and send it to your lender. If they don't want to accept it just tell them to make friends with farmers.
Little known fact: you can send many things [mailaspud.com] through the mail service without needing packaging. You can just wri
Re: (Score:2)
"Do We Need A Bigger SIGINT Truck?" note the term "phone-a-friends"
https://www.eff.org/document/2... [eff.org]
Handles Encrypted Traffic
https://www.eff.org/document/2... [eff.org]
VPN
https://www.eff.org/document/2... [eff.org]
and ICREACH https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] that gave access to but the US still had to cover the origins in open court.
The color of law change is all the once secure, hidden methods and tools wil