Ridiculously Misinformed Opinion Piece In WSJ Asks Apple And Google To Make Everyone Less Safe

from the who-takes-these-people-seriously? dept

Former Wall Street Journal publisher L. Gordon Crovitz still gets to publish opinion pieces in the WSJ. And while I often find them interesting, any time he touches on technology in almost any manner, he seems to fall flat on his face, often in embarrassing ways -- such as the time he insisted the internet was invented by companies without government support (yes, he really argued that). Crovitz has also been strongly pro-surveillance state for years. He's attacked Wikileaks and Chelsea Manning by blatantly taking quotes out of context, and then last year, writing a column about the Snowden leaks that showed he doesn't understand even the basic facts. Crovitz tends to see the world the way he wants to see it, rather than the way it really is.

His latest is no exception, repeating a bunch of bogus or debunked claims to argue that the tech industry should happily insert back doors into technology to aid in surveillance. He kicks it off by both repeating the false claim concerning how "subway bomber" Najibullah Zazi was caught, but also totally misunderstanding the difference between encrypting data on a device and encrypting data in transit:
It’s a good thing Najibullah Zazi didn’t have access to a modern iPhone or Android device a few years ago when he plotted to blow up New York City subway stations. He was caught because his email was tapped by intelligence agencies—a practice that Silicon Valley firms recently decided the U.S. government is no longer permitted.

Apple , Google, Facebook and others are playing with fire, or in the case of Zazi with a plot to blow up subway stations under Grand Central and Times Square on Sept. 11, 2009. An Afghanistan native living in the U.S., Zazi became a suspect when he used his unencrypted Yahoo email account to double-check with his al Qaeda handler in Pakistan about the precise chemical mix to complete his bombs. Zazi and his collaborators, identified through phone records, were arrested shortly after he sent an email announcing the imminent attacks: “The marriage is ready.”
Except, no. It wouldn't have mattered if he had a modern iPhone or Android device because whether or not email is encrypted is entirely unrelated to whether or not data on the device is encrypted. What Apple and Google are promising now is to encrypt data on the device. Even if that was turned on, if you send an unencrypted email, it's still available to be viewed. Crovitz is comparing two completely different things and doesn't seem to realize it. What kind of standards does the WSJ have when it allows such false arguments to be published uncritically?

Furthermore, the fact that Zazi sent an unencrypted email via Yahoo was a different issue. And Yahoo encrypted all its email connections a while ago, and no one freaked out at the time. Even so, that's unimportant, because law enforcement and the intelligence community can and do still read emails with a warrant. And, as was made clear by many in the analysis of the Zazi case, he had been watched by law enforcement for a while. The phone encryption that Google and Apple are discussing would have had no impact whatsoever on the Zazi case. So why even bring it up, other than pure surveillance state FUD?

But, to someone as ignorant of the basics as Crovitz, it's an opportunity to double down.
The Zazi example (he pleaded guilty to conspiracy charges and awaits sentencing) highlights the risks that Silicon Valley firms are taking with their reputations by making it impossible for intelligence agencies or law enforcement to gain access to these communications.
Except, again, that's not true. Intelligence agencies and law enforcement would still have access to communications in transit -- just not data held on his phone directly (which they wouldn't have unless they got the phone itself). Second, it still wouldn't be "impossible" to get the information. They could either crack the encryption or issue a subpoena ordering the phone's owner to unlock the data (or potentially face a potential contempt of court ruling). While there are some 5th Amendment concerns with that latter route, it's still not "impossible." And it's not about communications. Crovitz is just totally ignorant of what he's writing about.
Since then, U.S. and British officials have made numerous trips to Silicon Valley to explain the dangers. FBI Director James Comey gave a speech citing the case of a sex offender who lured a 12-year-old boy in Louisiana in 2010 using text messages, which were later obtained to get a murder conviction. “There should be no one in the U.S. above the law,” Mr. Comey said, “and also no places within the U.S. that are beyond the law.”
Again, different issue. The Louisiana case? That was debunked a day later, and it wasn't because of access to the kind of information that would now be encrypted. As noted by the Intercept:
In another case, of a Lousiana sex offender who enticed and then killed a 12-year-old boy, the big break had nothing to do with a phone: The murderer left behind his keys and a trail of muddy footprints, and was stopped nearby after his car ran out of gas.
Next thing you know, Crovitz will argue that all shoes should come pre-muddied so that law enforcement can track them. After all, how could law enforcement track down criminals who don't leave a trail of muddy footprints?

Then Crovitz shifts to his own personal worldview -- insisting that the public actually doesn't want privacy or protection from the snooping eyes of government. He insists, the truth is the public really wants to be spied on.
It looks like Silicon Valley has misread public opinion. The initial media frenzy caused by the Edward Snowden leaks has been replaced by recognition that the National Security Agency is among the most lawyered agencies in the government. Contrary to initial media reports, the NSA does not listen willy-nilly to phone and email communications.

Last week, the Senate killed a bill once considered a sure thing. The bill would have created new barriers to the NSA obtaining phone metadata to connect the dots to identify terrorists and prevent their attacks. Phone companies, not the NSA, would have retained these records. There would have been greater risks of leaks of individual records. An unconstitutional privacy advocate would have been inserted into Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court proceedings.
First off, no, the USA Freedom Act was never "a sure thing." From the very beginning, it was considered a massive long shot. And, no it would not have "created new barriers" -- it would have merely made it clear that the NSA can't simply collect everyone's data in the hopes of magically sifting through the haystack and finding connections. Also, Crovitz is flat out wrong (again!) that this would have led to a "greater risk" because the phone companies held the data. While this was the key talking point among those who voted against it, it's simply incorrect. The telcos already retain that information. The bill made no changes to what information telcos could and would retain. It only said that they shouldn't also have to ship all that data to the NSA as well. There was no increased risk. Saying so is -- once again -- trumpeting Crovitz's ignorance.

Furthermore, the idea that the public is miraculously comfortable with the government spying on them... based on the government voting against curtailing government surveillance is simply ludicrous. It doesn't even pass a basic laugh test. The Pew Research poll that tracks this issue most closely continues to show that the vast majority of people are against NSA surveillance on American data, and the numbers who feel that way have been growing consistently since the first of the Snowden revelations.

But let me repeat the assertion Crovitz made here, just to remind everyone of how idiotic it is: he's saying that the public is now comfortable with surveillance because Congress voted down surveillance reform. And he thinks this is obvious.
The lesson of the Snowden accusations is that citizens in a democracy make reasonable trade-offs between privacy and security once they have all the facts. As people realized that the rules-bound NSA poses little to no risk to their privacy, there was no reason to hamstring its operations. Likewise, law-abiding people know that there is little to no risk to their privacy when communications companies comply with U.S. court orders.
Facts, huh? It's kind of funny that he'd argue for the facts when he seems to be lacking in many of them. And he's wrong. There is tremendous risk to privacy, as illustrated by the fact that the NSA regularly abused its powers to spy on Americans. Furthermore, he ignores (or is ignorant of the fact) that much of the data the NSA collects is also freely available to the CIA and FBI -- and that the FBI taps into it so often that it doesn't even track how many times it dips into the database.

And of course, none of this even bothers to point out that the reason why Google and Apple are increasing encryption is because it makes us all much safer from actual everyday threats -- including the very threats that the NSA and others in law enforcement keep warning us about. Making us all safer is a good thing, though, not to L. Gordon Crovitz, apparently.

Crovitz is either woefully clueless and misinformed or he's purposely misleading the American public. Neither reflects well on him or the Wall Street Journal.

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • identicon
    Whoever, 24 Nov 2014 @ 10:15am

    I am 100% in agreement with some of the claims

    “There should be no one in the U.S. above the law,” Mr. Comey said, “and also no places within the U.S. that are beyond the law.”


    I completely agree with this. US laws should apply to the NSA, police and others just as it applies to ordinary people. Also, places under US control, such as Gitmo.

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 24 Nov 2014 @ 10:28am

    If the Snowden revelations failed to change Mr. Crovitz's opinion. Then nothing will. Mr. Crovitz appears to be in the minority when it comes to people changing their opinions on mass spying. According the the Pew Research poll linked to in this article.

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

  • icon
    silverscarcat (profile), 24 Nov 2014 @ 10:36am

    What kind of standards does the WSJ have when it allows such false arguments to be published uncritically?

    Probably the same as some blogging websites that claim to be news.

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

  • icon
    sorrykb (profile), 24 Nov 2014 @ 10:36am

    What kind of standards does the WSJ have when it allows such false arguments to be published uncritically?

    WSJ standards.

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 24 Nov 2014 @ 10:37am

    Senate vote not representative

    Setting aside the usual carping about Congressional legislators not acting as their constituents wish, the Senate vote is particularly unrepresentative of the will of the people given when it was held. Votes for the most recent election had already been cast, so it will be a minimum of 2 years (for Senators coming up in the 2016 election) and a maximum of ~6 years (for Senators elected this year) before constituents could express their pleasure/displeasure with their Senator at the ballot box. Two years gives a Senator a long time to bury an embarrassing vote, assuming he/she even believes his vote would have a negative impact on his reelection chances. Senators who lost their reelection this time around likely felt even less pressure to vote as their constituents wanted.

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

  • icon
    sorrykb (profile), 24 Nov 2014 @ 10:38am

    The initial media frenzy caused by the Edward Snowden leaks has been replaced by recognition that the National Security Agency is among the most lawyered agencies in the government.

    I don't think that's as reassuring as Mr. Crovitz means it to be.

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

  • identicon
    Rich Kulawiec, 24 Nov 2014 @ 10:47am

    "Neither reflects well on him or the Wall Street Journal."

    In 1984, the late, great Mike Royko was working at the Chicago Sun-Times when Rupert Murdoch bought it. He left, and opined "No self-respecting fish would want to be wrapped in a Murdoch paper". That observation has held up remarkably well over 30 years and there's no sign it will cease doing so. The WSJ has nothing to do with the practice of journalism and everything to do with the agenda set for it by its owner. Crovitz isn't cluelessly doing bad reporting; he's deliberately writing propaganda, bowing down subserviently before his master and doing his bidding -- which at the moment, is to stoke the fires of the Fear Machine as high as possible so that a pack of whining, incompetent Constitution-stomping assholes can have their way.

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

  • identicon
    Baron von Robber, 24 Nov 2014 @ 10:48am

    Wow, I guess no crimes were solved beyond those by Sherlock Holmes, before the invention of smart phones.

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

  • identicon
    PIGS ARE FLYIN, 24 Nov 2014 @ 11:44am

    nsa secretly pays him to mouth off

    nsa secretly pays him to mouth off

    do some investigations you might learn the truth

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 24 Nov 2014 @ 11:54am

      Re: nsa secretly pays him to mouth off

      nsa secretly pays him to mouth off
      You are stating this as a fact.

      do some investigations you might learn the truth
      You indicate that you posess information which is unknown to the rest of us.

      Can you prove your fact?

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

  • icon
    william (profile), 24 Nov 2014 @ 1:09pm

    It's shocking that a journalist believes privacy or anonmity are not important. Was he really a journalist or a hack?

    Since he doesn't believe in privacy or anonymity, and trust the government/NSA so much, I would like Mr. Corvitz to put all his past sources and tipsters' name in a big spreadsheet and store it on a shared network drive on his computer, while emailing a copy to himself for safekeeping.

    No one would be looking, scout's honor.

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 24 Nov 2014 @ 2:11pm

    Article Rating: Pants on fire
    So funny TD effortlessly debunking everything he says.

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

  • identicon
    Captive Audience, 24 Nov 2014 @ 5:03pm

    I completely understand

    As someone that works in technology I understand completely. But I think it's disingenuous to claim the reason they oppose encryption is because it will make us less safe. I know the real reason. It's a lot easier to not have to follow any rules. It would be great to be able to deploy my stuff without any plans whatsoever. All that paperwork and procedure is a real drag. The NSA, FBI and WTF need to put on their big boy pants and follow the procedure. They can blame technicalities for dangerous criminals going free all they want or they can take responsibility for not following the rules.

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

  • identicon
    Captive Audience, 24 Nov 2014 @ 5:07pm

    I completely understand ...

    And what happened to the open debate? I knew all along it was a one-sided conversation. Not anymore. The public has been lied to enough that crying wolf, even by proxy, isn't going to work this time.

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

  • icon
    tqk (profile), 24 Nov 2014 @ 8:42pm

    Very one sided conversation, methinks.

    Why do these guys spout, and spout, and spout, and apparently never listen to those talking back explaining why their assumptions are horribly wrong? They could be learning from the conversation, but it's not a conversation for them. They just spout and expect us to fall into line and accept their interpretation.

    Not going to happen. It's INSULTING!

    Comey, quit already! You're doing an abysmal job. Your fellow travellers are doing an even worse job. This guy doesn't even know what playing field he's on!

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

  • identicon
    steve, 25 Nov 2014 @ 6:52am

    Please warn of paywalled articles

    Please consider putting a warning on paywalled articles you link to - these links are pointless for anyone who doesn't want to pay the corporate media or at least give them an email address. It is worth talking about these articles, because they are influential, but readers can't see for themselves what you are talking about.

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

    • icon
      PW (profile), 25 Nov 2014 @ 5:38pm

      Re: Please warn of paywalled articles

      Do a Google search for the title of the article and you will get free access to it when you click on the first search result for the WSJ site.

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

  • icon
    John85851 (profile), 25 Nov 2014 @ 8:03am

    Anyone else calling him out

    Is there anyone else in the media calling this guy out for his blatant false statements? Or is everyone sitting back and agreeing because it's an opinion piece in the WSJ?

    Or is this another case of someone deliberately publishing a controversial opinion piece just to get a reaction? Who cares if it's true or not- just look how many people are coming to the site to read it.

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 25 Nov 2014 @ 8:32am

    "The initial media frenzy caused by the Edward Snowden leaks has been replaced by recognition that the National Security Agency is among the most lawyered agencies in the government."

    The lawyers aren't there for the protection of America, they are there to help the NSA with their mission, just as the HR department isn't there for the people of the company but to protect the company.

    Even without your breakdown of Crovitz's article (though I'm glad someone calls him out on all this bullshit) it's easy to tell he has no idea what he's talking about.

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

  • icon
    Uriel-238 (profile), 25 Nov 2014 @ 9:23am

    I don't think this article is meant to convince anyone to change their mind.

    This article seems to be more of a dog whistle to reassure those who don't want to believe their nation, or agents thereof, are capable of terrible misdeeds.

    My nation is detaining and torturing people without due process, or passing around my daughter's nudes extracted from her own phone and letting, even encouraging the police murder and rob with impunity. Knowing all this must be terrifying to the typical layman wanting to be left alone and carry on.

    And this kind of article is reassuring to those who want to hide their heads in a bush and pretend the rest of them is concealed.

    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
Shop Now: Copying Is Not Theft
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.