From his perspective as the head of the FBI whose job it is to achieve outcomes within the law, of course Comey advocates encryption backdoors. He would likely also advocate allowing the FBI to suspend the bill of rights for any suspect during the duration of an investigation, and he'd quite likely prefer that the FBI be legally allowed to torture suspects if extreme techniques were viewed as likely to result in useful information. To law enforcement, the rights of a suspect are a barrier to many convictions.
How did we get to this point? Nobody would reasonably argue that extreme surveillance measures, patriot act, etc., is necessary to stop the vast majority of crimes from occurring, so why is it so easy for seemingly serious/intelligent people to think this nonsense is reasonable?
Members of our government are so indoctrinated about stopping "terrorism" that they have lost all sense of perspective. Terrorism is a political word to describe political enemies of the state, yet the patriot act and surveillance machinery has been used in enforcement of many other kinds of (less serious) crime.
I am surprised anyone can still use the word "terrorism" with a straight face anymore after it's become so clear that there is no large existential threat (merely the occasional zealot who acts out due to his/her own mental health issues). And in spite of a historically unprecedented global surveillance system there have been no attacks thwarted.
Comey is a symptom of the kind of cowardly, authority-respecting society we've become. I look forward to the day when our FBI director is not someone whose gaffes and judgment calls we read about in the newspaper on a regular basis.
Members of our government are so indoctrinated about stopping "terrorism" that they have lost all sense of perspective.
In this case, it might be better to assume malice rather than incompetence. In the 1950's it was s/terrorist/communist/, but it was a remarkably effective political tool. We might be in the same situation.
But this time, our fates are all linked. Once shipping backdoors becomes mainstream, it might be impossible to go back.
We should try to think of some concrete steps to resist this. It feels like we have to try, since there's so much at stake.
Could we reverse engineer the political forces at play? We could try to think of the most effective thing we could do, and then focus on that.
Comey is a bureaucrat looking for more power to do his job. He's the runny nose.
The flu is Feinstein. From the ridiculous controls that treat cold medicine like contraband, the Patriot act, and bullshit like this, the Senator is a wellspring of bad law and disrespect for the American people.
> Members of our government are so indoctrinated about stopping "terrorism" that they have lost all sense of perspective. Terrorism is a political word to describe political enemies of the state, yet the patriot act and surveillance machinery has been used in enforcement of many other kinds of (less serious) crime.
You are looking at the problem wrong. It has nothing to do with government indoctrination but an issue with incentives. The FBI's whole job is to investigate potentially illegal acts and as human beings they are incentivized to do their job as well as they can. When the opportunity comes up to give them more tools to do their job no one in the FBI is going to say "no I want to continue with one hand behind my back".
The exact same thing happens at companies. Companies with poorly aligned incentives will quickly see employees act against the will of the company as a whole to make sure they look and come across as best as possible, and any chance a decision comes up to help them do their job better they will fight for it, because not doing so is pretty dumb.
Well run companies work around these incentive issues by trying to get everyone aligned with checks and balances. We don't have that in the government because the people who are supposed to be doing the checks and balances (congress) have incentives to follow the FBI's requests because of the political suicide of coming out against solving crimes and defeating terrorists. It can (and will) be used against them at election time and their checks and balances (us as voters) fall for it all the time because we (as a collective whole) are short sighted and scared that something might happen and don't want to be someone who voted for someone soft on security.
The only way to realign the incentives back for societal good is to get the common voter to understand the bigger implications of issues and hold our elected officals accountable. Until that happens the incentiives are always going to be aligned for the government to gain power.
>He'd quite likely prefer that the FBI be legally allowed to torture suspects if extreme techniques were viewed as likely to result in useful information. To law enforcement, the rights of a suspect are a barrier to many convictions.
Not Comey. In this committee session he bluntly said torture is not effective and that his personal standard for what constitutes torture is more stringent than that in the statutes.
There are threats against the US that are more than a few crazy people. The rise of Islamism is real. But the reality is that the number of casualties due to terrorism in the US is dwarfed by those of gang or drug violence, even including 9/11 (which is now more than 15y ago...). We do not hear anyone suggesting restricting civil liberties to reduce gang violence. It is kind of a curious massively asymmetrical tolerance to crime.
> I am surprised anyone can still use the word "terrorism" with a straight face anymore after it's become so clear that there is no large existential threat
It was always just a ruse to snatch power. Parading a potential existential threat to consolidate authority goes back to antiquity and is a common theme in historical narratives, fiction, allegorical literature, popular political writings of the founding fathers...
It's like the political version of a 419 scam. I'm continually dumbfounded that people fall for these things.
In the modern era, there's accessible easy-to-read references at our finger-tips to learn about all the classic shams that are constructed to manipulate and seize power, but it doesn't seem to matter. It's really something.
> From his perspective as the head of the FBI whose job it is to achieve outcomes within the law, of course Comey advocates encryption backdoors.
Wiretapping and search warrants are long standing and well support ways for law enforcement to investigate among other things organized crime. Just because you know have encryption doesn't mean that has changed. Similar to how the NSA didn't suddenly stop doing signal intelligence just because they allegedly "lost the crypto wars".
> Nobody would reasonably argue that extreme surveillance measures, patriot act, etc., is necessary to stop the vast majority of crimes from occurring, so why is it so easy for seemingly serious/intelligent people to think this nonsense is reasonable?
It's a presumably a "better safe than sorry" and "nobody got fired for choosing more surveillance" kind of a thing.
> Terrorism is a political word to describe political enemies of the state, yet the patriot act and surveillance machinery has been used in enforcement of many other kinds of (less serious) crime.
Terrorism is just the ultimate argument of people in the establishment. Just like encryption enthusiast might have some story about how they are helping dissidents, but are mostly encrypting their warez and mundane e-mails.
""" surprised anyone can still use the word "terrorism" with a straight face anymore
"""
Is quickest way to shut down conversation. Especially given horrific events in France, Ohio, Florida. Your argument is not only ridiculous its counter productive to anyone offering a balanced saner approach.
Comey is not just someone with a job at a particular organisation, he's also a servant of the state, and he is a citizen. Any servant of the state has a duty to the constitution. His job description comes second (or later).
It's not at all natural that he should argue for hollowing out the constitution, or favour the needs of own organisation over the rest of the state or over the entire society.
The article specifically states that he doesn't want a backdoor:
“We’ve had very good open and productive conversations with the private sector over the last 18 months about this issue, because everybody realizes we care about the same things. We all love privacy, we all care about public safety and none of us want backdoors — we don’t want access to devices built in in some way. What we want to work with the manufacturers on is to figure out how can we accommodate both interests in a sensible way”
> Comey is a symptom of the kind of cowardly, authority-respecting society we've become.
I am an Indian citizen living in USA and I think American society must take the blame here and not the politicians. The way society thinks and votes I think only a total narcissist moron can succeed in US administration.
The fastest way to rise to top (as we saw in case of Obama and Trump) is to find some target group and blame that group for the failure of other larger society. The larger society is far too quick to raise pitchforks and burn the other group at stake.
It is depressing to see that large % of Americans have seen inside of jail. A lot of people labeled as "suspected terrorist" or "sex offenders" are no where close to the common sense definition of those words. But once you have that label rest of the society treats you like utter shit. You cant find a job, state can put any arbitrary restrictions on all your freedoms etc.
Unless US society learns to be compassionate and stand up for the rights of even those "deplorable" people purely as matter of principle I don't think there is any scope for optimism.
I remember Ron Paul's words "Once you give up some liberty, you are not going to get it back, ever!"
> Nobody would reasonably argue that extreme surveillance measures, patriot act, etc., is necessary to stop the vast majority of crimes from occurring, so why is it so easy for seemingly serious/intelligent people to think this nonsense is reasonable?
This depends on what kind of crime you talk about. And is "the vast majority of crimes" actually prevented from occurring? How do you get numbers for this?
Calling people who don't agree with you stupid is not going to advance your cause. At all.
> I am surprised anyone can still use the word "terrorism" with a straight face anymore after it's become so clear that there is no large existential threat (merely the occasional zealot who acts out due to his/her own mental health issues).
Two points:
1. The occasional zealot is all it takes to make people feel unsafe, affect their behaviour towards other people and just generally ruin a lot of peoples days.
2. Blaming all terrorist attacks on mental issues alone without taking into account viral ideologies is dishonest.
edit: i forgot this:
> And in spite of a historically unprecedented global surveillance system there have been no attacks thwarted.
I'm confused about this. I'm hurried at the moment, but this seems to a bill that orders tech companies to provide a solution to encryption without having a backdoor?
Isn't this like legislating a violation of mathematics or something?
As I just put it in my open letter: "Let me be clear. This distinction that the Director makes has no basis in fact or science. Any imaginable key escrow system that would by design provide routine access to encrypted data is a backdoor that will be able to be hacked. Any such system of so called lawful intercept is an unfixable, mandated security vulnerability that will make Americans less safe both at home and abroad." (https://rietta.com/blog/2017/05/03/americans-access-to-stron...)
So, the NSA and the CIA were recently hacked, yet these numbskulls think we can create a system that will only be accessed by "the good guys" How many hacks, leaks etc will it take for them to understand that if this passes, that will be the end of online security?
New Rule: If you want to propose cybersecurity legislation, you need to pass the fizz buzz test.
they think we can create a system only available to them
Because there are civilian consumer systems, and state apparatus systems. The civilian consumer systems just leave shit out in the open, all over the place, and make a mess, with no obligation to common, clueless people.
Everyone knows that no effort is made to retain military operational security for sloppy, undisciplined non-combatants.
Anyone with clearance to actual hardened systems, sees a clear difference from the other side of the wall, and questions why the charade must go on, when it'd be so much easier to dispose of the pretense that there's "privacy" to be had, and see investigations forced to prosecute with so much parallel construction.
The state apparatus systems, in their minds, deserve preservation of secrecy, because it puts the owners at an advantage. They seek advantage by crippling consumer civilian systems. This is the line of reasoning from their perspective. Render outsiders defective. Create real systems for themselves. Maintain authority by denying useful systems to unknown quantities.
> "What nobody wants to have happen is something terrible happen in the United States and it be connected to our inability to access information with lawful authority."
But they're not asking for that. They're asking for the ability to force companies to grant them access to information without something terrible happening.
The only way you could prevent something terrible happening, and have that prevention be "connected to [their] ability to access information with lawful authority", is to have the ability to inspect private data. And the only reasonable way they would do that is to do it surreptitiously.
They could try just asking the user to unlock their iPhone, or demand it with a court order (where I assume they can plead the 5th), but either would tip the suspect off. So they have to do it without the user's knowledge. And the only way to do that is if the company has a backdoor, or makes it so incredibly insecure as to no longer guarantee privacy at all.
The only logical way to give the FBI what it wants is to compromise user privacy.
> During the session, Comey also made repeat plays for expanding the scope of national security letters (NSL) — arguing that these administrative subpoenas were always intended to be able to acquire information from internet companies, not just from telcos.
The FBI claims that they would always get permission from a judge for invading user privacy. In the next breath, they want to expand NSLs, which is invading user privacy without requiring a judge's approval.
Both Lavabit and Silent Circle have had to close down their businesses after Lavabit was unreasonably demanded by the government (in a gag-ordered search warrant) to give up its private TLS keys, exposing all its users' privacy. But no law enforcement agency gives a shit about privacy; only secrecy.
Unbelievable. Just happened to see a clip today (https://goo.gl/F9XeQU) where Feinstein was "grilling" Comey about announcing the investigation into Clinton right before the election.
When Feinstein totally let him off the hook I was floored?!? He interfered worse than the Russians - how does he still have a job?
Ahh, she wants his support for the decrypt bill. I'll never understand why the Democrats have zero interest in protecting personal privacy.
“I don’t think Congress intended that distinction but what it does do us is in our most important investigations it requires us that if we want to find out the subscriber info to a particular email to go and get an order from a federal judge in Washington as part of the FISA court. An incredibly long and difficult process. And I’m worried about that slowing us down — and I’m also worried about it being a disincentive for our investigators to do it at all.”
Hurdles to protect privacy are important. If it's not an arduous process we have a problem.
Would it be okay to mandate spy microphones in all cars, spy cameras in all rooms, and make it illegal to remove or disable them, as long as only the 'good guys', with a warrant, could access the info?
What if doing this would save N people/year from terrorist attacks?
What other rights should we sacrifice for a 'safer' society? Surely we shouldn't let terrorist recruit people, so there goes free speech. We also shouldn't let them gather together to plot their wicked plots, so there goes freedom of association. And if we could bar people at risk of committing terrorist acts, from vulnerable locations, such as subways, airports, parks with a lot of people in them, well, I'm sure that would save a few lives too.
Putting in backdoors is sure fire way to kill US based mobile phone producers. Criminals will just use foreign produced phones and only way to counteract that is to outlaw those phones. Can't wait till they criminalize having certain firmware on your phones.
I had a slightly different take on the issue. If you require U.S. companies to include backdoors (or whatever word the FBI comes up with) then those companies will simply move operations to another country. Silicon Valley will dry up and innovation will happen somewhere else. You can already see the seeds of such a movement; when researchers are afraid to present at a conference for fear of being arrested[0], or a company is being forced to do something it doesn't want to do[1].
These things are not conducive to a growing, free nation. Our current leadership talks about bringing jobs back to America, but this course of action is forcing companies to move elsewhere, and taking their jobs with them.
> We all love privacy, we all care about public safety and none of us want backdoors — we don’t want access to devices built in in some way. What we want to work with the manufacturers on is to figure out how can we accommodate both interests in a sensible way
It's not, but notice his wording. He has no clue if it's possible or not, he wants a mandate for the tech companies to "figure it out".
There have been voices from the tech industry saying it's impossible, but Comey doesn't want to hear that. He's literally called that response "emotional" and believes tech lovers simply are clinging to encryption and privacy irrationally.
He's not going to stop until he can hear what he wants to hear. I think the only thing that will satisfy him is a beltway bandit lying to him about their technology.
Diane Feinstein is old and needs to retire. She is completely out of touch with the needs of her constituency, and comes off more like an old guard republican rather then a democrat that she is supposed to be.
> comes off more like an old guard republican rather then a democrat
This is true of most Democrats these days, except when they want to pander to minorities or other disadvantaged groups who could use real, actual allies instead of the panderers. I am amazed and humbled by these folks' perseverance in the face of a two party system in which one party apparently hates them and the other thinks so little of them that their best efforts at being allies generally consists of terrible pandering.
Unfortunately the Democrats have been trying to out-Republican the Republicans since the Clinton administration. (When the party really embraced getting all married-up with wealthy donors, and inevitably turned its back on its traditional roots.)
I don't know why California Democrats elected Diane in the first place. Were there not any real liberals in California to choose from preferably with some expertise in Californias most valuable export?
I was watching the hearing during lunch, had to attend to work meetings, and then saw this article which is what spurred me to post my open letter to Congress tonight and share it here on HN at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14261423. We have to get this information out there in a format that Congress and our non-techie friends and family understand.
Law enforcement is tasked with putting people in jail, not so much preventing future abuses of bad laws by governments. This is why checks and balances must be maintained, for when all you have is a hammer everything looks like a nail.
"The high profile court battle ultimately ended after the FBI paid a third party company to gain access to the device via an exploit in the security system."
Can someone call out these alleged encryption back doors for what they are? Junk science.
If Apple and Google aren't legally able to build as secure as devices & infrastructure as possible, the DOJ, FBI, NSA, and CIA sure as hell won't be secure. Merry Christmas to Assange.
"Backdoor" is such a loaded term. But it could be done relatively securely with a dual key system. Apple (or you/your device), has one key; the government has some other key. Either one unlocks the phone.
But then you need the government to securely store a few master keys. Given the latest CIA, NSA and OPM leaks I doubt this is possible long-term. However, maybe changing the devices keys based on year of manufacture is a reasonable step to have some sort of safeguard.
> We have to figure out a way to optimize those two things: privacy and public safety.
Given how safe the public is, you'd think that this would mean "we need to focus on privacy". That is the public's priority. The FBI, whose mandate is abviously not to protect the privacy of citizens, is obviously going to advocate for the public safety, or more specifically his organization's degree of visible success in ensuring it.
Obviously the director of the FBI is not who you should be asking for a balanced recommendation regarding safety and privacy.
[+] [-] grandalf|9 years ago|reply
How did we get to this point? Nobody would reasonably argue that extreme surveillance measures, patriot act, etc., is necessary to stop the vast majority of crimes from occurring, so why is it so easy for seemingly serious/intelligent people to think this nonsense is reasonable?
Members of our government are so indoctrinated about stopping "terrorism" that they have lost all sense of perspective. Terrorism is a political word to describe political enemies of the state, yet the patriot act and surveillance machinery has been used in enforcement of many other kinds of (less serious) crime.
I am surprised anyone can still use the word "terrorism" with a straight face anymore after it's become so clear that there is no large existential threat (merely the occasional zealot who acts out due to his/her own mental health issues). And in spite of a historically unprecedented global surveillance system there have been no attacks thwarted.
Comey is a symptom of the kind of cowardly, authority-respecting society we've become. I look forward to the day when our FBI director is not someone whose gaffes and judgment calls we read about in the newspaper on a regular basis.
[+] [-] sillysaurus3|9 years ago|reply
In this case, it might be better to assume malice rather than incompetence. In the 1950's it was s/terrorist/communist/, but it was a remarkably effective political tool. We might be in the same situation.
But this time, our fates are all linked. Once shipping backdoors becomes mainstream, it might be impossible to go back.
We should try to think of some concrete steps to resist this. It feels like we have to try, since there's so much at stake.
Could we reverse engineer the political forces at play? We could try to think of the most effective thing we could do, and then focus on that.
[+] [-] Spooky23|9 years ago|reply
The flu is Feinstein. From the ridiculous controls that treat cold medicine like contraband, the Patriot act, and bullshit like this, the Senator is a wellspring of bad law and disrespect for the American people.
Why do Californians keep electing this person?
[+] [-] KallDrexx|9 years ago|reply
You are looking at the problem wrong. It has nothing to do with government indoctrination but an issue with incentives. The FBI's whole job is to investigate potentially illegal acts and as human beings they are incentivized to do their job as well as they can. When the opportunity comes up to give them more tools to do their job no one in the FBI is going to say "no I want to continue with one hand behind my back".
The exact same thing happens at companies. Companies with poorly aligned incentives will quickly see employees act against the will of the company as a whole to make sure they look and come across as best as possible, and any chance a decision comes up to help them do their job better they will fight for it, because not doing so is pretty dumb.
Well run companies work around these incentive issues by trying to get everyone aligned with checks and balances. We don't have that in the government because the people who are supposed to be doing the checks and balances (congress) have incentives to follow the FBI's requests because of the political suicide of coming out against solving crimes and defeating terrorists. It can (and will) be used against them at election time and their checks and balances (us as voters) fall for it all the time because we (as a collective whole) are short sighted and scared that something might happen and don't want to be someone who voted for someone soft on security.
The only way to realign the incentives back for societal good is to get the common voter to understand the bigger implications of issues and hold our elected officals accountable. Until that happens the incentiives are always going to be aligned for the government to gain power.
[+] [-] 1457389|9 years ago|reply
Not Comey. In this committee session he bluntly said torture is not effective and that his personal standard for what constitutes torture is more stringent than that in the statutes.
[+] [-] cm2187|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kristopolous|9 years ago|reply
It was always just a ruse to snatch power. Parading a potential existential threat to consolidate authority goes back to antiquity and is a common theme in historical narratives, fiction, allegorical literature, popular political writings of the founding fathers...
It's like the political version of a 419 scam. I'm continually dumbfounded that people fall for these things.
In the modern era, there's accessible easy-to-read references at our finger-tips to learn about all the classic shams that are constructed to manipulate and seize power, but it doesn't seem to matter. It's really something.
[+] [-] throwaway847345|9 years ago|reply
Wiretapping and search warrants are long standing and well support ways for law enforcement to investigate among other things organized crime. Just because you know have encryption doesn't mean that has changed. Similar to how the NSA didn't suddenly stop doing signal intelligence just because they allegedly "lost the crypto wars".
> Nobody would reasonably argue that extreme surveillance measures, patriot act, etc., is necessary to stop the vast majority of crimes from occurring, so why is it so easy for seemingly serious/intelligent people to think this nonsense is reasonable?
It's a presumably a "better safe than sorry" and "nobody got fired for choosing more surveillance" kind of a thing.
> Terrorism is a political word to describe political enemies of the state, yet the patriot act and surveillance machinery has been used in enforcement of many other kinds of (less serious) crime.
Terrorism is just the ultimate argument of people in the establishment. Just like encryption enthusiast might have some story about how they are helping dissidents, but are mostly encrypting their warez and mundane e-mails.
[+] [-] aub3bhat|9 years ago|reply
""" surprised anyone can still use the word "terrorism" with a straight face anymore """
Is quickest way to shut down conversation. Especially given horrific events in France, Ohio, Florida. Your argument is not only ridiculous its counter productive to anyone offering a balanced saner approach.
[+] [-] twoodfin|9 years ago|reply
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05...
[+] [-] Arnt|9 years ago|reply
It's not at all natural that he should argue for hollowing out the constitution, or favour the needs of own organisation over the rest of the state or over the entire society.
[+] [-] dntrkv|9 years ago|reply
“We’ve had very good open and productive conversations with the private sector over the last 18 months about this issue, because everybody realizes we care about the same things. We all love privacy, we all care about public safety and none of us want backdoors — we don’t want access to devices built in in some way. What we want to work with the manufacturers on is to figure out how can we accommodate both interests in a sensible way”
[+] [-] bingomad123|9 years ago|reply
I am an Indian citizen living in USA and I think American society must take the blame here and not the politicians. The way society thinks and votes I think only a total narcissist moron can succeed in US administration.
The fastest way to rise to top (as we saw in case of Obama and Trump) is to find some target group and blame that group for the failure of other larger society. The larger society is far too quick to raise pitchforks and burn the other group at stake.
It is depressing to see that large % of Americans have seen inside of jail. A lot of people labeled as "suspected terrorist" or "sex offenders" are no where close to the common sense definition of those words. But once you have that label rest of the society treats you like utter shit. You cant find a job, state can put any arbitrary restrictions on all your freedoms etc.
Unless US society learns to be compassionate and stand up for the rights of even those "deplorable" people purely as matter of principle I don't think there is any scope for optimism.
I remember Ron Paul's words "Once you give up some liberty, you are not going to get it back, ever!"
[+] [-] ponyfleisch|9 years ago|reply
This depends on what kind of crime you talk about. And is "the vast majority of crimes" actually prevented from occurring? How do you get numbers for this?
Calling people who don't agree with you stupid is not going to advance your cause. At all.
> I am surprised anyone can still use the word "terrorism" with a straight face anymore after it's become so clear that there is no large existential threat (merely the occasional zealot who acts out due to his/her own mental health issues).
Two points:
1. The occasional zealot is all it takes to make people feel unsafe, affect their behaviour towards other people and just generally ruin a lot of peoples days.
2. Blaming all terrorist attacks on mental issues alone without taking into account viral ideologies is dishonest.
edit: i forgot this:
> And in spite of a historically unprecedented global surveillance system there have been no attacks thwarted.
Provably wrong.
[+] [-] dhfhduk|9 years ago|reply
Isn't this like legislating a violation of mathematics or something?
[+] [-] rietta|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] FullMtlAlcoholc|9 years ago|reply
New Rule: If you want to propose cybersecurity legislation, you need to pass the fizz buzz test.
[+] [-] pavement|9 years ago|reply
Everyone knows that no effort is made to retain military operational security for sloppy, undisciplined non-combatants.
Anyone with clearance to actual hardened systems, sees a clear difference from the other side of the wall, and questions why the charade must go on, when it'd be so much easier to dispose of the pretense that there's "privacy" to be had, and see investigations forced to prosecute with so much parallel construction.
The state apparatus systems, in their minds, deserve preservation of secrecy, because it puts the owners at an advantage. They seek advantage by crippling consumer civilian systems. This is the line of reasoning from their perspective. Render outsiders defective. Create real systems for themselves. Maintain authority by denying useful systems to unknown quantities.
[+] [-] j05huaNathaniel|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] peterwwillis|9 years ago|reply
But they're not asking for that. They're asking for the ability to force companies to grant them access to information without something terrible happening.
The only way you could prevent something terrible happening, and have that prevention be "connected to [their] ability to access information with lawful authority", is to have the ability to inspect private data. And the only reasonable way they would do that is to do it surreptitiously.
They could try just asking the user to unlock their iPhone, or demand it with a court order (where I assume they can plead the 5th), but either would tip the suspect off. So they have to do it without the user's knowledge. And the only way to do that is if the company has a backdoor, or makes it so incredibly insecure as to no longer guarantee privacy at all.
The only logical way to give the FBI what it wants is to compromise user privacy.
> During the session, Comey also made repeat plays for expanding the scope of national security letters (NSL) — arguing that these administrative subpoenas were always intended to be able to acquire information from internet companies, not just from telcos.
The FBI claims that they would always get permission from a judge for invading user privacy. In the next breath, they want to expand NSLs, which is invading user privacy without requiring a judge's approval.
Both Lavabit and Silent Circle have had to close down their businesses after Lavabit was unreasonably demanded by the government (in a gag-ordered search warrant) to give up its private TLS keys, exposing all its users' privacy. But no law enforcement agency gives a shit about privacy; only secrecy.
[+] [-] mgleason_3|9 years ago|reply
When Feinstein totally let him off the hook I was floored?!? He interfered worse than the Russians - how does he still have a job?
Ahh, she wants his support for the decrypt bill. I'll never understand why the Democrats have zero interest in protecting personal privacy.
[+] [-] feld|9 years ago|reply
Hurdles to protect privacy are important. If it's not an arduous process we have a problem.
[+] [-] bogositosius|9 years ago|reply
How "important" can the investigation possibly be if this serves as a "disincentive"?
[+] [-] utternerd|9 years ago|reply
According to whom, we the people or a bunch of authoritarians who'd like to be able to access every nook and cranny of our personal lives?
[+] [-] omginternets|9 years ago|reply
Call me silly, but I think grammar is important. I hope you don't take this the wrong way!
Edit: lol, I thing I made a typo earlier.
[+] [-] DarkKomunalec|9 years ago|reply
What if doing this would save N people/year from terrorist attacks?
What other rights should we sacrifice for a 'safer' society? Surely we shouldn't let terrorist recruit people, so there goes free speech. We also shouldn't let them gather together to plot their wicked plots, so there goes freedom of association. And if we could bar people at risk of committing terrorist acts, from vulnerable locations, such as subways, airports, parks with a lot of people in them, well, I'm sure that would save a few lives too.
[+] [-] adrr|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Corrado|9 years ago|reply
These things are not conducive to a growing, free nation. Our current leadership talks about bringing jobs back to America, but this course of action is forcing companies to move elsewhere, and taking their jobs with them.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Elcom_Ltd. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FBI%E2%80%93Apple_encryption_d...
[+] [-] jjawssd|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pgodzin|9 years ago|reply
How is this possibly reconcilable?
[+] [-] white-flame|9 years ago|reply
There have been voices from the tech industry saying it's impossible, but Comey doesn't want to hear that. He's literally called that response "emotional" and believes tech lovers simply are clinging to encryption and privacy irrationally.
He's not going to stop until he can hear what he wants to hear. I think the only thing that will satisfy him is a beltway bandit lying to him about their technology.
[+] [-] ardit33|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sidlls|9 years ago|reply
This is true of most Democrats these days, except when they want to pander to minorities or other disadvantaged groups who could use real, actual allies instead of the panderers. I am amazed and humbled by these folks' perseverance in the face of a two party system in which one party apparently hates them and the other thinks so little of them that their best efforts at being allies generally consists of terrible pandering.
[+] [-] burntrelish1273|9 years ago|reply
There's a post-partisan, grassroots PAC to do exactly that:
https://brandnewcongress.org/
https://twitter.com/BrandNew535
[+] [-] callahad|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rdiddly|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] averagewall|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dv_dt|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] masterleep|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rdxm|9 years ago|reply
Edit to add: of course the same could be said about the remaining 49 states and their reps/sens as well...
[+] [-] thegayngler|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rietta|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] RichardHeart|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bdamm|9 years ago|reply
Why isn't this an acceptable solution?
[+] [-] AJ007|9 years ago|reply
If Apple and Google aren't legally able to build as secure as devices & infrastructure as possible, the DOJ, FBI, NSA, and CIA sure as hell won't be secure. Merry Christmas to Assange.
[+] [-] 0xfeba|9 years ago|reply
But then you need the government to securely store a few master keys. Given the latest CIA, NSA and OPM leaks I doubt this is possible long-term. However, maybe changing the devices keys based on year of manufacture is a reasonable step to have some sort of safeguard.
[+] [-] benevol|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] microcolonel|9 years ago|reply
Given how safe the public is, you'd think that this would mean "we need to focus on privacy". That is the public's priority. The FBI, whose mandate is abviously not to protect the privacy of citizens, is obviously going to advocate for the public safety, or more specifically his organization's degree of visible success in ensuring it.
Obviously the director of the FBI is not who you should be asking for a balanced recommendation regarding safety and privacy.
[+] [-] JustSomeNobody|9 years ago|reply