OTOH if these techniques and vulnerabilities were made public it would benefit cybercriminals as they could defend themselves better.
Should the government prove that it followed the law when investigating a criminal? Did they obtain the proper warrants that people recognize preserve stable law and order?
It's unreasonable to assume that the vulnerability, that brought this case to justice, is the last one that could ever be used. More so, if you assume that most people are good and a healthy society needs privacy, we now know that there is a vulnerability that will affect more good people than bad and we are duty bound to protect good people's privacy.
Checks on the government's power aren't there to let 'bad people' go free, there there because we know if we let the government's power reign free, more good people will be hurt than the few 'bad people' we punish.
That is the concern. A lot of people say "you either did it or not" but the Fourth Amendment disagrees...any evidence must be obtained by following the law.
Hell, during my last attended CAMS conference, FBI guy outright said said that if the new lawyer doesn't know how to play ball with those ( informatikn gathered by SARs ), he gets pulled to the side and told whats what.
Chilling. And no one questioned it. Including me.
They do, but only if the defendant requires them to do so.
What’s happening here is that the prosecutors told the defendant “look, we all know you did it, so plead guilty and we’ll recommend a light sentence. You have a right to make us reveal our tor backdoor, but if you do the plea offer is off and we will have the trial, and win, and ask the judge to send you to prison until you die.”
I’m sure the defendant is very interested in learning about the tor backdoor, but the idea of getting out of prison one day seems a little more compelling.
Secret communication is definitely one of them. And since the negative potential is huge, there is always going to be a incredible incentive of those looking for the criminals to inspect any form of communication. I think the potential of misuse by the "bad guys" is a lot higher at the moment compare to "good guys" to be caught.
So for the general public, if you are not doing anything bad you should not worry... Right?
I am a little paranoid. For example that things may shift in a way that today the "good guys" do not expect or undervalue.
What if in the future the good guys become the bad guys? Or what if the bad guys get in control of the systems the "good guys" have?
And of course in some countries the majority may be the "bad guys"... And in other things may not be so black or white.
That same logic applies to any sort of forensic technique, but it's a basic precept of the US justice system that an accused can see and respond to the evidence against them, including questioning the scientific validity of how that evidence was gathered.
Just because a technique is "cyber" doesn't mean an accused magically doesn't have a right to know the chain of custody, techniques used etc.
In reality I realized that this has always been the case in the last 100 years.
In some regards, we are beyond democracy since the voters do not know what is going on and to be fair even if they knew it, most of them will be unable to know what it means.
If the system is hidden who is making sure that who control remain in the good side?
Is something changing inside the system?
Who is going to make sure the system stay on the good side?
Now Star Wars plot comes to mind...
By that logic, the government shouldn't ever have to describe its investigative methods and prove they both comport with the law and accepted science because if their investigative methods are known then criminals benefit.