FBI Director Continues His Attack On Technology, Privacy And Encryption

from the not-how-it-works dept

FBI Director James Comey has doubled down on his basic attack on technology and privacy with a speech at the Brookings Institution entitled "Going Dark: Are Technology, Privacy, and Public Safety on a Collision Course." He admits that he wants "every tool" available to law enforcement, and he's worried about that darn tech industry for wishing to keep users' information private. He calls it a "public safety problem." Others may disagree.
Unfortunately, the law hasn’t kept pace with technology, and this disconnect has created a significant public safety problem. We call it “Going Dark,” and what it means is this: Those charged with protecting our people aren’t always able to access the evidence we need to prosecute crime and prevent terrorism even with lawful authority. We have the legal authority to intercept and access communications and information pursuant to court order, but we often lack the technical ability to do so.

We face two overlapping challenges. The first concerns real-time court-ordered interception of what we call “data in motion,” such as phone calls, e-mail, and live chat sessions. The second challenge concerns court-ordered access to data stored on our devices, such as e-mail, text messages, photos, and videos—or what we call “data at rest.” And both real-time communication and stored data are increasingly encrypted.
Of course, many of us look at that encryption itself as a public safety issue on the other side. Greater encryption allows people to communicate safely, securely and privately -- which is an important public safety consideration. The simple fact is that crimes have been committed throughout human history without the ability of law enforcement to eavesdrop on people. It's merely an accident of history that so much communication recently has had backdoors and holes by which eavesdropping was even possible. Closing those doors doesn't mean law enforcement can't solve crimes, and it's silly to mandate backdoors when it's not necessary and can create more problems.

Comey seems particularly annoyed that the tech industry is locking stuff up in response to the Snowden revelations, because he argues, that's blocking all sorts of other stuff he'd like to have access to:
In the wake of the Snowden disclosures, the prevailing view is that the government is sweeping up all of our communications. That is not true. And unfortunately, the idea that the government has access to all communications at all times has extended—unfairly—to the investigations of law enforcement agencies that obtain individual warrants, approved by judges, to intercept the communications of suspected criminals.

Some believe that the FBI has these phenomenal capabilities to access any information at any time—that we can get what we want, when we want it, by flipping some sort of switch. It may be true in the movies or on TV. It is simply not the case in real life.

It frustrates me, because I want people to understand that law enforcement needs to be able to access communications and information to bring people to justice. We do so pursuant to the rule of law, with clear guidance and strict oversight. But even with lawful authority, we may not be able to access the evidence and the information we need.
Again, there's an interesting sense of entitlement there. There's lots of information law enforcement would like to have, and even may legally have the right to have, but which they cannot have. And that's been true throughout history, and law enforcement has survived and crimes have been stopped and criminals caught and prosecuted. What Comey is advocating here is to make everyone less safe just in case law enforcement wants it. That's a problem.

Bizarrely, Comey is quite upset that companies are now marketing the fact that they keep you secure.
Encryption isn’t just a technical feature; it’s a marketing pitch. But it will have very serious consequences for law enforcement and national security agencies at all levels. Sophisticated criminals will come to count on these means of evading detection. It’s the equivalent of a closet that can’t be opened. A safe that can’t be cracked. And my question is, at what cost?
The cost of privacy and trust. Which are, you know, kind of important too...

And then he goes back to his simply wrong declaration that this is about making people "above the law." But that's not true. There is no legal requirement that this information be available. It's not above the law at all. Being above the law means ignoring the law and getting away with it. But, to Comey, being above the law is apparently doing stuff that makes the FBI's job marginally more difficult.
I hope you know that I’m a huge believer in the rule of law. But I also believe that no one in this country should be above or beyond the law. There should be no law-free zone in this country. I like and believe very much that we need to follow the letter of the law to examine the contents of someone’s closet or someone’s cell phone. But the notion that the marketplace could create something that would prevent that closet from ever being opened, even with a properly obtained court order, makes no sense to me.

I think it’s time to ask: Where are we, as a society? Are we no longer a country governed by the rule of law, where no one is above or beyond that law? Are we so mistrustful of government—and of law enforcement—that we are willing to let bad guys walk away...willing to leave victims in search of justice?
And then there's this: He's not a scaremonger, but you should be afraid:
I’ve never been someone who is a scaremonger. But I’m in a dangerous business.
And, of course, he wants Congress to step in and fix things for him, making everyone less safe:
We also need a regulatory or legislative fix to create a level playing field, so that all communication service providers are held to the same standard and so that those of us in law enforcement, national security, and public safety can continue to do the job you have entrusted us to do, in the way you would want us to.
A "level field"? Really? The field has been tilted strongly towards the FBI and NSA for well over a decade. It's only now, with further encryption, that it's been leveling out...

Reader Comments

The First Word

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 16 Oct 2014 @ 2:15pm

    Simply put , we need all Americans to replace even they own with transparent versions , Then we can all feel safe.

    Someone should send him a clear suit and under garments.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 16 Oct 2014 @ 2:16pm

    There would be no reason to lock everything up had the spying agencies not run amok with it. The idea is that yes, they are indeed vacuuming everything up they can get their fingers on.

    These companies offering this are doing so to protect their bottom line. The news has encircled the globe about how much rampant spying and malware to spy is being put out. If they want to remain in business they don't have much choice but to offer things to protect user privacy.

    No one is at fault here but those doing the spying. It has brought about the necessity for this to be done.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    That One Guy (profile), 16 Oct 2014 @ 2:16pm

    And the irony meter just exploded

    I hope you know that I’m a huge believer in the rule of law. But I also believe that no one in this country should be above or beyond the law. There should be no law-free zone in this country.

    Here's a hint you obtuse idiot, the reason there's been an increased interest in encryption is because your fellows in the government do believe themselves above the law, and have been acting accordingly. If you lot had shown an ounce of self-restraint, and not gone completely overboard, with the 'Collect all the data!' mentality, people would be a lot less concerned with making sure their communications were secure.

    In the wake of the Snowden disclosures, the prevailing view is that the government is sweeping up all of our communications. That is not true.

    Technically true, but it's not for lack of trying. If they could do that, you can bet they absolutely would, what's stopping them has nothing to do with respect towards the right of the public, or the law, but simple technical issues.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      John Fenderson (profile), 16 Oct 2014 @ 2:26pm

      Re: And the irony meter just exploded

      "Technically true, but it's not for lack of trying."

      Actually, it's established with a high degree of confidence that they really are sweeping up all electronic communications. Or at least close enough to "all" to count.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 16 Oct 2014 @ 3:24pm

      Re: And the irony meter just exploded

      (1)Are we so mistrustful of government—and of law enforcement—(2)that we are willing to let bad guys walk away...willing to leave victims in search of justice?

      Weird, I had to read that twice, to understand the second part wasn't talking about the FBI/NSA -vs- the public.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    John Fenderson (profile), 16 Oct 2014 @ 2:24pm

    You missed one of the better lines

    Comey said:

    There is a misconception that building a lawful intercept solution into a system requires a so-called 'back door,' one that foreign adversaries and hackers may try to exploit.

    But that isn't true. We aren't seeking a back-door approach. We want to use the front door, with clarity and transparency, and with clear guidance provided by law. We are completely comfortable with court orders and legal process - front doors that provide the evidence and information we need to investigate crime and prevent terrorist attacks.


    I love this quote, because he uses a whole ton of words to say, basically, "I don't understand what a back door is."

    Here's a pro-tip for you, Comey: whether or not it is used with "clarity, transparency, and with clear guidance provided by law" has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not it's a back door.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 16 Oct 2014 @ 2:25pm

    Windows Going Dark

    In other news, law enforcement is concerned about the large number of windows "going dark" owing to the installation of devices called, appropriately enough, "window blinds" because they "blind" law enforcement. How is law enforcement going to combat crime in buildings if they can't even see in?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 16 Oct 2014 @ 2:40pm

      Re: Windows Going Dark

      How is law enforcement going to combat crime in buildings if they can't even see in?

      To combat the menace of window blinds, the Chief of Police in Houston proposed putting police cameras in everyone's home. Seriously.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        That One Guy (profile), 16 Oct 2014 @ 2:48pm

        Re: Re: Windows Going Dark

        I remember an article about forcing pawnshops and the like to allow real-time access to police to their security camera(s), but I think this is the first I've heard of that bit of insanity being pushed for homes.

        While it honestly wouldn't surprise me(disgust yes, surprise no), you have a citation for that one?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 16 Oct 2014 @ 3:10pm

          Re: Re: Re: Windows Going Dark

          I too have heard proposals about law enforcement being allowed access to retailer's surveillance systems. I can't speak for any 'mom-&-pop' but the few chain retailers I've dealt with will NOT allow anybody outside their chain on their network. Even their own vendors and contractors are not allowed access. Given the recent payment card breaches I can understand why.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 16 Oct 2014 @ 3:26pm

          Re: Re: Re: Windows Going Dark

          Houston Police Chief Wants Surveillance Cameras In Private Homes
          http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=6506

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 16 Oct 2014 @ 10:38pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Windows Going Dark

            I actually thought it was an exaggeration example... I don't know why I am surprised anymore.
            Worst part is that I love technology... it's my job and my hobby, but these people make me fear the future, because there is no question in my mind that they will misuse it in every way possible.
            Far in the future scenario: Why catch criminals when you can just program the nanobots keeping us healthy, to make sure everyone behaves?
            Whether it will be by extensive surveillance, fear or mind-control, we would end up drones if it were up to these people.
            It sounds very paranoid and like science fiction, but is there doubt anymore that "law-enforcement" would at least try to misuse that kind of technology?

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              John Fenderson (profile), 17 Oct 2014 @ 8:42am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Windows Going Dark

              "Worst part is that I love technology... it's my job and my hobby, but these people make me fear the future, because there is no question in my mind that they will misuse it in every way possible. "

              I struggle with this as well. The compromise that I've made is that there are certain specific technologies that I have a great deal of interest in but have quit working on because they have an unusually high chance of being abused. Things like biometrics, etc. I have, and will continue to, refuse job offers and contracts that deal with these sorts of things.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Applesauce, 16 Oct 2014 @ 2:26pm

    Smart toilets are here!

    Smart toilets, long available in Japan, are now available in the US. If you're unfamiliar with them, google them.
    Some will analyze your waste. Some have wifi connectivity, and some have already been hacked.

    If you think Comey and his NSA partners would show restraint and NOT want access to your toilet, you have not been paying attention. They have already demonstrated an unlimited appetite for gathering your private data. This is one more opportunity.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 16 Oct 2014 @ 2:26pm

    Too lazy to get a warrant but we must Protect the Children™.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Baron von Robber, 16 Oct 2014 @ 2:37pm

    Perhaps James Comey would just prefer all the 'bad' guys to report to the nearest FBI office to make things even easier.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 16 Oct 2014 @ 2:40pm

    What's his endgame? Convince the public that encryption is evil? Given that any company that publicly weakens its encryption would suffer tremendously in the market, his pleas seem to be in vain.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Mason Wheeler (profile), 16 Oct 2014 @ 2:43pm

    There should be no law-free zone in this country.

    Hear hear! I agree wholeheartedly, Mr. Comey! In fact, why don't you lead by example and do away with the Fourth-Amendment-Free Zones that exist up to 100 miles from our borders?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 16 Oct 2014 @ 2:50pm

    Just like attempts at gun control, people who feel their rights are threatened will attain and use said technology in greater numbers.

    Encrypt often and always.

    https://ssd.eff.org/tech/disk-encryption

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 16 Oct 2014 @ 2:55pm

    This FBI Director seems unaware that invasive surveillance has always been a zero-sum gain in the long term. The FBI's ability to tap telephones never stopped organized crime, which simply adapted to these tactics by speaking in code or using random pay phones. Any super-duper secret eavesdropping method anyone can possibly devise will only ever work once, since nailing someone for a crime means revealing the evidence against them in a public courtroom for all to see. Then authorities will need another privacy-busting tactic, then another, in an endless pursuit.

    The constant quest for technological solutions has been a distraction that has kept authorities from pursuing the kind of old fashioned shoe-leather investigative work that has always produced results.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Todd Shore (profile), 16 Oct 2014 @ 2:55pm

    Law Enforcement thinks they are the law

    Law Enforcements sees themselves and what they do AS the law.
    Which is why they never can understand it when the citizenry criticizes law enforcement for itself acting above the law. The Government asks, "How can we be above ourselves? These wacko people even understand basic logic".

    This is the true problem with "governmemt entitlements". The government feels entitled. The courts certainly haven't helped with their "compelling interest" rulings. I do not ever recall seeing "compelling interest" in the Constitution, yet a LOT of case and legislative law has been built on it even around amendments that specifically include "Congress shall make no law".

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 16 Oct 2014 @ 3:00pm

    Get a court order, pig.

    Or STFU. Ignorant, incompetent, lazy, stupid jackasses like you aren't fit to wear a badge.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 16 Oct 2014 @ 3:00pm

    Hidden chambers

    You have always had the right to build a hidden chamber, write a diary in an obscure language and hide it in unknown location, and there was no requirement to reveal it to the government.

    Even with warrants and subpoenas, the government had no inherent right to discover things it couldn't prove.

    Data is just data, and if it can't prove who owns it, or by which process it has been generated, I fail to see why a lawfull access regime ought to grant the government any 'right' to data it does not have in the physical world.

    If the government has no right to compel a third party to interpret every paper document a power otherwise constrained by the Fourth and Fifth Amendment, it should neither have any power to access digital information.

    The FBI's real concern is therefore that builtin encryption sometimes reinforces preexisting Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights.

    If a suspect's phone or computer is encrypted, it doesn't hinder legitimate law enforcement as long as the police either has probable cause, gets a warrant or asks for consent.

    If the police lacks probable cause, or can't get a warrant or the owner refuses consent, law enforcement is not deprived of anything to which it should be entitled.

    The only situation where encryption subtracts anything from what the government can legitimately obtain by complying with the Fourth Amendment should already fall within the exclusionary rule and not be admitted as evidence.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 16 Oct 2014 @ 3:07pm

    Ummm, If he believes in the rule of law, why hasn't he fired the agents who have abused NSL's?

    Or is this just another instance of the government flipping us the "do as I say, not as I do" middle finger?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Hans, 16 Oct 2014 @ 3:14pm

    Darkness

    Comey calls it "Going Dark", the NSA calls it "The Golden Age of Surveillance".

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 16 Oct 2014 @ 3:16pm

    "In Kansas, data from a cell phone was used to prove the innocence of several teens accused of rape. Without access to this phone, or the ability to recover a deleted video, several innocent young men could have been wrongly convicted."

    If that were the case, it would be a miscarriage of justice, not a fault of technology.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 16 Oct 2014 @ 3:19pm

    Mr.Comey, I'm sure that if you're sincere in your position & frustration with the recent events regarding encryption, you must at least see how the public ( "us" from your point of view) is hesitant to take what you say at face value. Especially with the evident lack of oversight on multiple levels, how can we not be mistrustful of the government's motives when "public safety" is used as precendent for questionable practices/legislation?

    If you cannot understand that, I would recommend you come to terms with your frustration.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Applesauce, 16 Oct 2014 @ 3:27pm

    Coney is a lawyer

    He views it as an adversarial process.

    His job is to win (against those he considers criminals). He thinks it is his job to zealously catch and put away the "bad" people, using every tool he can get his hands on.

    He believes it is somebody else's job to protect your rights, and if those somebodies do their job, the system will work.

    But those of us who think the first duty of government is to safeguard our rights, the system isn't working.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 16 Oct 2014 @ 3:28pm

    It seems to me that the core problem is, the definition of "crime" has changed. Used to be, "crime" meant doing something violently coercive or fraudulent to someone. If there was no fraud or coercion, there was no crime.

    The FBI isn't interested in that at all, at all. In this new world, all that's criminal is speech. If there's no speech, there's nothing that can be prosecuted: regardless of how many coercive or fraudulent actions occurred. If you don't discuss your child abduction/rape on the telephone, it didn't occur. If your terrorist cell doesn't plot on the internet, it's free to do whatever it wishes.

    In this new world, nobody's charged with a crime. They're charged with the much more serious offense of "conspiracy to commit" a crime. Whether or not the crime actually occurred -- is irrelevant.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    BlueLightMemory, 16 Oct 2014 @ 3:36pm

    Cry Baby Comey

    It's a laugh watching Comey cry about encrytion that blocks law enforcement's creeping eyes.

    I love using encrytion and I will continue to use encryption no matter what Comey or the other criminals in government say. I fully believe in my 4th amendment rights.

    Comey, do us all a favor and stfu and start cleaning out your own house called the FBI.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 16 Oct 2014 @ 3:42pm

    Love this

    Love this part at the end
    ... so that those of us in law enforcement, national security, and public safety can continue to do the job you have entrusted us to do, in the way you would want us to.

    I want you to do it without access to my encrypted data.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    justme, 16 Oct 2014 @ 3:52pm

    "I hope you know that I’m a huge believer in the rule of law. But I also believe that no one in this country should be above or beyond the law. There should be no law-free zone in this country."

    So is my home a "law-free zone" or should i be legally required to provide the FBI with a key?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      John Fenderson (profile), 17 Oct 2014 @ 10:23am

      Re:

      If you are presented with a warrant, you are legally required to give law enforcement access to the property that is specified in the warrant. If the warrant specifies that you have to provide the key, then you do.

      This is how it should be, and encrypting the contents of phones ensures that this is how it is with phones as well. This is why Comey's statements are so despicable. He's straight-up lying, in the most craven and logically faulty way possible.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 16 Oct 2014 @ 3:54pm

    The government: taking away your freedoms so the terrorists don't have to.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 16 Oct 2014 @ 3:59pm

    We also need a regulatory or legislative fix to create a level playing field, so that all communication service providers are held to the same standard and so that those of us in law enforcement, national security, and public safety can continue to do the job you have entrusted us to do, in the way you would want us to.
    I welcome Mr. Comey's newfound commitment to ECPA reform, the USA Freedom Act (original non-watered down version), and his upcoming submission of sworn criminal complaints for known criminals in the surveillance state apparatus, starting with Director of National Intelligence admitted liar James Clapper.

    Upholding the Constitution is a core part of the job we entrusted him to do...

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Mike, 16 Oct 2014 @ 4:55pm

    He used a similar analogy on 60 Minutes this weekend, basically having encryption was like a car trunk that never opened. I wrote about why this analogy is complete BS on my site. (http://mikemcbrideonline.com/2014/10/fbi-director-james-comey-gets-phone-encryption-completely-wron g/) In a nutshell, law enforcement with a warrant can demand that I open the trunk to my car, they don't get to sneak into my garage and open it with their magic key. Why would a phone be any different? Serve me with the warrant, and demand that I give you the key to decrypt the phone, if I refuse, I am in contempt of a court order. Why is this so difficult for the director of the FBI to understand?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 16 Oct 2014 @ 5:11pm

      Re:

      Because they are too lazy to get a warrant. That would be too much like work.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Reality bites, 17 Oct 2014 @ 7:48am

      Because the fbi is run by a traitor.

      Rogue agencies should be shut down and every employee imprisoned, if we need any room we can turn all the drug war POWs loose, since the drug war was nothing but treason for profit. The entire dea needs erased as well.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 16 Oct 2014 @ 5:25pm

    "We do so pursuant to the rule of law, with clear guidance and strict oversight."

    ...oh God, my sides! The non-existent veracity of that one statement alone renders the rest of his verbal vomit null and void. Comey is blank as a fart.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    KRA, 16 Oct 2014 @ 5:32pm

    He doth protest too much

    Corporations run the government for all practical purposes. US business interests were hurt by the revelation that they colluded with the NSA to hand over everything we do electronically.

    I wonder if this is just another lie we're being told. I wonder if the tech companies are still enabling warrantless collection of all our data--as they have done for years--and have cooked up this fiction of protecting it so they can keep making money. And I wonder if, as part of the deal, the government is faking outrage about our fictional new privacy to try to make us believe it's real.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 16 Oct 2014 @ 5:55pm

    Well Comey, let's have a live feed of your bedroom 24/7 and see how you like it. You don't? Then go back to China where you belong.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    PopeRatzo (profile), 16 Oct 2014 @ 6:09pm

    The money quote

    "There's lots of information law enforcement would like to have, and even may legally have the right to have, but which they cannot have. And that's been true throughout history, and law enforcement has survived and crimes have been stopped and criminals caught and prosecuted."
    Best, truest thing I've read on the internet today.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 16 Oct 2014 @ 6:26pm

    It's a simple reflexive reaction-

    to the abuse our governments have heaped upon us all. There is nothing new here, some criminals will hide their plans and booty from you and have doing so forever. Get off your soap box, untwist your panties and get to work. Your whiney rant is no more valid then your illegal and corrupt practices, only the result thereof.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 16 Oct 2014 @ 8:48pm

    Comey Said: "I hope you know that I’m a huge believer in the rule of law."

    This statement makes no sense to me in the context of his speech. The law says that encryption is perfectly legal, thus encryption falls well within the "rule of law".

    So he believes in the rule of law, except where the rule of law prevents him from accessing everyone's data?

    Mind.Blown

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    FBI Delusional, 16 Oct 2014 @ 10:39pm

    I am a believer! I also believe I can fly!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Jamie, 17 Oct 2014 @ 1:40am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Windows Going Dark

    Personally, I can't wait until I don't have to think for myself and have my every move decided and controlled by government computers. The Borg are pretty bad-ass, nobody would object to that right? Resistance is Futile.

    There is definitely going to be a civil war over this, add to it the civil war over immigration, and the religious muslim vs christian war we've got coming then I reckon post-apocolyptic eutopia is just around the corner for those hardy enough to survive the interim :)

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 17 Oct 2014 @ 3:53am

    A little FYI:

    Just as Google's "Don't be evil" con was revealed to be an attempt at Goebbels-esque misdirection, so is every one of their pieces of propaganda suggesting the government is spying on you more than they themselves are.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      That One Guy (profile), 17 Oct 2014 @ 4:24pm

      Re:

      This is brought up a lot when government spying is mentioned, though other than mindless Google hate or an attempt at misdirection I can't figure out why, but the standard responses are as follows:

      1. You can choose not to give Google information, by not using their services and/or blocking their services. You do not however have the same luxury when it comes to the government.
      2. Google doesn't have the authority to arrest you or throw you in jail.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 17 Oct 2014 @ 4:54am

    They keep telling us that if we have nothing to hide we have nothing to fear. Well, there's a corollary to that. If I have nothing to hide, then they having nothing to fear if I hide it anyway.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Reality bites, 17 Oct 2014 @ 7:44am

    Comey couldn't direct a stream of pee accurately

    Calling comey a director is a sad joke, the drooling puppet couldn't find his butt with written directions and a couple fellow fbi bumblers helping him.

    Rogue agencies shouldn't be listened to, they should be closed down and the traitor employees put on trial and executed.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 17 Oct 2014 @ 8:38am

    Remember paying with cash is suspicious , buying a pressure cooker , reading certain books , carrying large sums of money while driving , having a car with air-fresheners ..how many other things are on that list, America is a lie.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 17 Oct 2014 @ 12:03pm

    Unfortunately, the law has most definatly kept pace with technology, its human rights that has'nt, you manipulative lying fuck

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 17 Oct 2014 @ 12:08pm

    "And unfortunately, the idea that the government has access to all communications at all times has extended—unfairly—"

    True statement or not?
    So you might not have the ability you CLEARLY are after.....or already have

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 17 Oct 2014 @ 12:12pm

    "It frustrates me, because I want people to understand that law enforcement needs to be able to access communications and information to bring people to justice."

    Except corruption right, boses, collegues, just generally to big to jail type folks, you know, the ones runing and influencing and creating the 100 and ten percent "just" laws..........do you see the freaking problem

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 17 Oct 2014 @ 12:20pm

    so that those of us in law enforcement, national security, and public safety can continue to do the job you have entrusted us to do, in the way you would want us to.

    WHEN, did, I, give, my, INFORMED consent, to be "governed" by authotarians masquerading as the good guys

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 17 Oct 2014 @ 12:26pm

    "...prevent terrorism even with lawful authority."

    WOW!

    We prevent "crime" by having laws and showing that the laws can/will be enforced, legally, if/when they are broken. Anything else is pre-crime.

    Even with lawful authority? So you do it anyway?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    balaknair (profile), 18 Oct 2014 @ 8:35am

    Rule of Law

    "I hope you know that I’m a huge believer in the rule of law. But I also believe that no one in this country should be above or beyond the law. There should be no law-free zone in this country."

    Does that mean Clapper, Brennan et al are going to face charges?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 19 Oct 2014 @ 9:13am

    Re:

    "If you are presented with a warrant, you are legally required to give law enforcement access to the property that is specified in the warrant. If the warrant
    specifies that you have to provide the key, then you do."

    No, you are not. Why are you spreading lies and misinformation?

    A warrant can't overcome the Fifth Amendment.

    The only situation wherein you can be compelled to decrypt data for the government is if it's a foregone conclusion that you is able to decrypt.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Show Now: Takedown
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.