Top FBI Official Says Tech Companies Need To 'Prevent Encryption Above All Else'

from the where-do-they-find-these-people? dept

Usually, when we see clueless government lackeys discussing the need to backdoor encryption, they at least admit upfront that they think encryption is important in protecting private information. Even that nutty rambling speech by Homeland Security Appropriations chair Rep. John Carter recognized that there were important reasons to use encryption to protect privacy. And FBI boss James Comey usually does some hand waving to that effect as well. But apparently he forgot to tell one of his deputies.

While testifying before Congress, Michael Steinbach, assistant director in the FBI's Counterterrorism Division, just went to the levels of pure insanity, in arguing that above all else companies should work to prevent encryption. This was during a ridiculous grandstanding hearing held by the House Homeland Security Committee entitled "Terrorism Gone Viral", and Steinbach didn't waste the opportunity to make a ridiculously viral comment of his own:
So that’s the challenge: working with those companies to build technological solutions to prevent encryption above all else.
Above all else? Is he crazy? At least his written testimony isn't quite as crazy, but still has a bunch of fear-mongering about "going dark."
Unfortunately, changing forms of internet communication are quickly outpacing laws and technology designed to allow for the lawful intercept of communication content. This real and growing gap the FBI refers to as “Going Dark” is the source of continuing focus for the FBI, it must be urgently addressed as the risks associated with “Going Dark” are grave both in traditional criminal matters as well as in national security matters.
He also seemed positively freaked out that some social networks actually recognize that protecting their users privacy is a good thing:
"There are 200-plus social media companies. Some of these companies build their business model around end-to-end encryption," said Michael Steinbach, head of the FBI's counterterrorism division. "There is no ability currently for us to see that" communication, he said.

"We're past going dark in certain instances. We are dark," he added.
While the head of the committee, Rep. Michael McCaul played along with this insanity, arguing about how these so called "dark spaces" are a "tremendous threat to the homeland" at least Rep. Ted Lieu -- the same Rep. who recently called out the push to backdoor encryption as "technologically stupid" -- has some more thoughts on the FUD and grandstanding by McCaul and Steinbach. As he told the Intercept:
“When they talk about dark places, ooooh it sounds really scary,” Lieu said. “But you have a dark place in your home you can talk, you can meet in a park –- there are a zillion dark places the FBI will never get to and they shouldn’t because we don’t want to be monitored in our home.” .....

“The notion that encryption is somehow different than other forms of destroying and hiding things is simply not true,” Lieu told The Intercept. “Forty years ago, you could make the statement that paper shredders are one of the most damaging things to national security because they destroy documents that law enforcement might want to see.”
More Lieu, less McCaul and Steinbach, please.

The thing is, as we've noted before, what's equally as disturbing as the ignorant statements from folks like Steinbach is that now, security researchers and tech companies are going to have to waste tons of time and resources explaining why all of this is not just "technically stupid" but actively makes all of us less safe. And they need to do that, rather than building stronger encryption, which is what we really need.

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • icon
    RadioactiveSmurf (profile), 5 Jun 2015 @ 6:29am

    "...ignorant statements from folks like Steinbach..." I would argue that they are willfully ignorant statements. Steinbach knows what he's doing and is pushing this narritive on purpose. He is as aware as Lieu is of dark places, and how forty years ago they go along just fine. Steinbach just doesn't want to lose something that makes the FBI's job so much easier.

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 5 Jun 2015 @ 7:24am

      Re:

      Steinbach just doesn't want to lose something that makes the FBI's job so much easier.

      I do not so sure that it actually makes their job easier because, they Hoover up as much information as they can and then try to make sense of it. Perhaps if the Internet and phones were heavily encrypted they would actually focus of the criminals, and that would make their job easier.

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

      • identicon
        Anonymous Anonymous Coward, 5 Jun 2015 @ 7:31am

        Re: Re:

        From my view the easier part is that they don't have to leave their safe offices and go out into the big scary world to do their jobs. That they have more 'paper' to push around is an excuse to stay indoors where no one can 'shoot' you with their cellphones.

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

      • icon
        SteveMB (profile), 5 Jun 2015 @ 8:06am

        Re: Re:

        It depends on what you mean by "their job".

        If you mean "actually stopping terrorists", then sweeping up everything makes their job harder (e.g. the clear red flags about the Fort Hood shooter, the Boston Marathon bombers, the Garland shooters, etc got lost in the information overload).

        If you mean "collecting a paycheck until you can collect a pension", well, then, yeah, being able to sit at a computer instead of wearing out shoe leather makes their job easier.

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

      • icon
        Agonistes (profile), 5 Jun 2015 @ 8:29am

        Re: Re:

        'Hoover' is such an apropos word in several different ways for this.

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

    • icon
      sigalrm (profile), 5 Jun 2015 @ 8:07am

      Re:

      He's helping the FBI set up the "middle ground" option, the same that you would do with any project.

      It's the proverbial "here's the cadillac option, here's the ford focus option, and here's the yugo option that you'd present as project options to your boss."

      This is (depending on your perspective) either the Yugo or the Cadillac option. He doesn't expect to get it, probably doesn't actually want it, and you can be certain he knows he's coming off as sounding unreasonable/irrational.

      But it's going to make the "middle ground" option - when finally presented - sound oh-so-much better to the powers that be.

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

      • identicon
        Jason, 5 Jun 2015 @ 8:11am

        Re: Re:

        ...and you can be certain he knows he's coming off as sounding unreasonable/irrational.
        I don't know...I'm not certain of that at all.

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 5 Jun 2015 @ 6:32am

    The more they push against encryption, the more ground (and credibility) they lose. Go take your dark-scary-place-terrorist platform back to 2001. We're done with it.

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

  • identicon
    Call me Al, 5 Jun 2015 @ 6:34am

    Next argument

    "Forty years ago, you could make the statement that paper shredders are one of the most damaging things to national security because they destroy documents that law enforcement might want to see.”

    To which the FBI would no doubt say "Wow good point. We better get those banned too."

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Anonymous Coward, 5 Jun 2015 @ 6:44am

      Re: Next argument

      Before shredders there were burn bags. They need to go back to the caveman era and sequester fire. That's in their purview, right?

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

      • icon
        sigalrm (profile), 5 Jun 2015 @ 8:08am

        Re: Re: Next argument

        Burn bags are still a thing in some environments. :)

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

        • icon
          John Fenderson (profile), 5 Jun 2015 @ 8:22am

          Re: Re: Re: Next argument

          You beat me to it. Burn bags are still used for very secure documents, because paper shredders only stop casual spies. More dedicated ones can and do reassemble shredded documents.

          Where I work, everything gets burnt after being shredded. We don't have burn bags as such, but instead we hire a company to take care of the disposal.

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

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 5 Jun 2015 @ 8:41am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Next argument

            Also, shredding documents prior to burning ensures a more efficient destruction due to the resulting aeration.

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

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 5 Jun 2015 @ 8:43am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Next argument

            We don't have burn bags as such, but instead we hire a company to take care of the disposal.

            That is a chink in your armor that the spy agencies can use.

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

            • icon
              John Fenderson (profile), 5 Jun 2015 @ 8:47am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Next argument

              Indeed yes. If it were my company, I'd do it differently, but it's not. Also, where I work the primary concern is industrial espionage, not governmental.

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

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 5 Jun 2015 @ 10:02am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Next argument

                Just make sure that your competition is not on the same round, and after you on your burn bag pickup.

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

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 5 Jun 2015 @ 10:23am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Next argument

                I thought most governmental espionage was also industrial espionage? Like what the USA did to Airbus.

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

                • icon
                  John Fenderson (profile), 5 Jun 2015 @ 2:35pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Next argument

                  "I thought most governmental espionage was also industrial espionage?"

                  I don't know if "most" fits there, but even if it does, it still remains true that most industrial espionage is not performed by the government. Most governmental industrial spying is also against foreign companies.

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

      • identicon
        PRMan, 5 Jun 2015 @ 10:44am

        Re: Re: Next argument

        I can't find it online, but the original congress building in the US had something like 700 fireplaces, for exactly this reason.

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

  • icon
    The Infamous Joe (profile), 5 Jun 2015 @ 6:52am

    TBF

    “But you have a dark place in your home you can talk, you can meet in a park –- there are a zillion dark places the FBI will never get to and they shouldn’t because we don’t want to be monitored in our home.”

    To be fair, there's a huge difference between this and encryption; the 'zillion dark places' can be monitored with a warrant. All the warrants in the world can't get them past encryption.

    Don't get me wrong, I think they just need to suck it up, but at least I understand why encryption freaks them out more than clandestine meetings in the dog park, amongst the hooded figures.

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

    • icon
      SteveMB (profile), 5 Jun 2015 @ 8:03am

      Re: TBF

      All the warrants in the world can't get them past encryption.


      Nonsense. Keyloggers and other bypass methods are well-known technologies. Of course, they need to be installed one device at a time, which is a bug for the Feds (who want to spy on everybody) but a feature for us (who want the Feds to obey the law).

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 5 Jun 2015 @ 11:26am

      Re: TBF

      Actually they can monitor encryption. They just have to monitor the endpoints (key loggers, microphones, hidden cameras, etc). Same as they can monitor "the 'zillion dark places'". The key thing about encryption is that they can't monitor between the end points. And since encryption prevents them from being able to monitor the middle, it means that whatever they do monitor doe require a warrant and so prevents the indiscriminate vacuuming of data on everyone.

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 5 Jun 2015 @ 6:57am

    I don't get it

    Encryption is not something that is limited to computers.

    Quoting Wikipedia: In cryptography, encryption is the process of encoding messages or information in such a way that only authorized parties can read it.

    You don't need computers to do it. All you need is an agreement between the parties wanting to communicate with each other privately. They could agree to use a book as key and send each other just pairs of numbers, the first indicating a specific page, the second the place of a word on that page. Without knowing the book there is no way (at least that I know of) to decrypt such a message.

    So, what is all the fuzz about?

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

    • icon
      John Fenderson (profile), 5 Jun 2015 @ 8:01am

      Re: I don't get it

      Two things: In today's world, if you want secure crypto you either need to use computers or you need to be able to share a secret key (which requires a secure method of communication to begin with). Also, in the old days, strong crypto was very rarely used, but since computers make it easy, it's common now.

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 5 Jun 2015 @ 7:01am

    don't forget the chinese

    the russians, iranians, mafia, north koreans
    they all need access too.........

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 5 Jun 2015 @ 7:04am

    For the FBI to justify their jobs of course......

    Just think how much weakened or lack of encryption helped the Chinese to OPM. And how much guaranteed work for the FBI this generated.

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 5 Jun 2015 @ 7:46am

      Re: For the FBI to justify their jobs of course......

      Having abysmal security is almost the same as no security at all.

      I like to think of the OPM data breach as a small way the US gov't is walking the talk.

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

      • icon
        Agonistes (profile), 5 Jun 2015 @ 8:33am

        Re: Re: For the FBI to justify their jobs of course......

        It's actually much worse than no security, perceived security encourages more people to risk more important communication and data using the illusion of security.

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 5 Jun 2015 @ 9:00am

      Re: For the FBI to justify their jobs of course......

      I bet that the people that are arguing for bad encryption also have never had their personal data stolen or exploited. If they were in that boat they would be saying lets encrypt everything.

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

  • identicon
    IdeaSpy 2.5, 5 Jun 2015 @ 7:10am

    Pssst

    Is there a banjo player in farmer Johannson's silo?

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 5 Jun 2015 @ 7:13am

    How can you tell a DHS employee is lying?

    Their lips are flapping.

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 5 Jun 2015 @ 7:17am

    > there are a zillion dark places the FBI will never get to and they shouldn’t because we don’t want to be monitored in our home.” .....


    Uhh...yeah, I think they already are being monitored in our homes through our PCs, TVs, smartphones and soon through all the "Internet of Things" devices.

    Lieu has been great so far, but it's interesting to see that even someone like him can't really understand that we're already passed that point and the situation is MUCH WORSE than he is imagining. If even he can't see that, what can we expect from the technologically clueless politicians?

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 5 Jun 2015 @ 7:19am

    Please abolish the DHS along with the TSA. They are not just worthless, but downright harming to actual national security.

    These morons are going to screw up and it's going to be 100% their fault, but even then they'll say:

    "IF WE ONLY HAD MORE POWERS WE WOULD'VE DEFINITELY STOPPED THIS ATTACK!!"

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 5 Jun 2015 @ 7:26am

    if it's that big an issue for him, buy Michael Steinbach a ticket to Iraq and tell him fuck off over there! see how long he lasts and how much he likes the government knowing so much about him that it knows what color his crap is before he drops it!!

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

  • identicon
    mcinsand, 5 Jun 2015 @ 7:34am

    they need to take a minute to consider the alternative

    Let's just say that no-one has access to encryption, just for the sake of argument. Everyone's information is unprotected. In other words, if a malicious entity wanted to do whatever, then that entity would be able to easily sort through information to find a suitable victim. Arguing against encryption is arguing for making us all easier targets; to oppose encryption is to oppose security for those people the bozos are supposed to be trying to protect.

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 5 Jun 2015 @ 8:16am

      Re: they need to take a minute to consider the alternative

      This behavior and the accompanying blather are nothing new for those with the statist mindset. Consider how many items you can use to complete the following paraphrase of mcinsand's statement:

      Arguing against [insert item] is arguing for making us all easier targets; to oppose [insert item] is to oppose security (or rights) of the people.

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

  • icon
    Village Idiot (profile), 5 Jun 2015 @ 7:34am

    Wow

    This guy is seriously calling having to get a warrant "going dark?" The only reason to say they cannot access communications at all is if they only do so without due process. Interesting how honest these guys can be when ignore the foolish point of their statements and read into the implications.

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

  • icon
    Jeff Green (profile), 5 Jun 2015 @ 7:43am

    Never mind shredders

    Matches!

    We must ban matches, apparently if you burn a letter no-one can read it afterwards.

    Oh and foreign languages, many people don't even speak God's good English how can we be expected to understand that?

    Oh and whispering!
    For pity's sake when will they ban whispering, we must think of the children ...


    sounds of very small brain exploding ...

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 5 Jun 2015 @ 7:51am

    When they outlaw encryption, only outlaws will have encryption

    Do they really think that criminals and terrorists aren't going to use encryption if it is made illegal? All this will do is ensure Joe Public is unsafe while criminals will have a field day. Next thing you know, they will make it illegal to have locks on the doors to your home and automobiles.

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 5 Jun 2015 @ 7:55am

      Re: When they outlaw encryption, only outlaws will have encryption

      They don't actually care about terrorists. There are not enough of those to keep them in business. They care about keeping Joe Public under their thumbs so they can keep their big budgets and cushy jobs.

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

    • icon
      sigalrm (profile), 5 Jun 2015 @ 8:01am

      Re: When they outlaw encryption, only outlaws will have encryption

      If you make encryption illegal, you can, ipso facto, arrest and convict people simply for using it.

      At that point, you don't even have to worry about the nature of the presumed illegal activity the crypto-user might have been planning.

      And in a networking environment where you can hoover up nearly all network traffic, people using crypto stick out like sore thumbs.

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

    • icon
      John Fenderson (profile), 5 Jun 2015 @ 8:04am

      Re: When they outlaw encryption, only outlaws will have encryption

      Not just criminals. I will continue to use strong crypto no matter what the laws say, but I am not a criminal by any rational definition.

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 5 Jun 2015 @ 8:30am

    So this must be the "Dark Web"

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

  • icon
    tqk (profile), 5 Jun 2015 @ 8:42am

    What's really missing here is effective oversight.

    If this guy really believes what he's saying, he should never have got the job and should be fired immediately, or at least demoted to walking a beat.

    These agencies waste a fortune on people like this, but with effective oversight scaring them into actually doing their jobs as is expected of them, they'd be able to do multiple times better than they are now, and with far less. Instead, encouraging lazy minded and ignorant whiners like this, all that money just pours through the cracks in the floor.

    All big gov't agencies learn this truth eventually. Throw a fortune at them and they'll find a way to waste it and come back whining they need more. Effective oversight is the only solution.

    Oh, and fire the people who hired him and his immediate superior too. They're apparently just as lazy or incompetent, or both. None of them are earning their continued employment and blue ribbon salaries.

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 5 Jun 2015 @ 8:47am

    Burn bags, matches, and fire...

    I'm old enough to remember when several large retailers in my area had an incinerator in back of their stores to burn their trash. Those were outlawed in the 1960's. Today the only 'incinerators' belong to biolabs, hospitals, and mortuaries. Not all of them have an incinerator, and they all have to go through a use permit process to get one. If there is an incinerator belonging to the government in my area I don't know about it. Likely burn bags are couriered to another area that has a legal incinerator.

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

    • icon
      John Fenderson (profile), 5 Jun 2015 @ 8:52am

      Re: Burn bags, matches, and fire...

      Sortof, yes. Private incinerators weren't exactly outlawed, but they were regulated due to the amount of pollution they were producing. Private incinerators still exist, but as you say, they have to be permitted and conform to emissions rules.

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

  • icon
    TheResidentSkeptic (profile), 5 Jun 2015 @ 8:57am

    "Above All Else"

    We need to remove Luddites like this from our government. We have become a digital nation; our leaders MUST become digitally aware (if not savvy) - so our only recourse is to convince digital natives to step up and run - and for us to elect them soon -before these clueless ones finish ruining this country. These guys are worse than the first senators who declared they would never "dial a phone" as it was beneath their dignity (or over their heads).

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 5 Jun 2015 @ 9:10am

    All this talk about being afraid of going dark makes me want to send them nightlights.

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

  • icon
    AEIO_ (profile), 5 Jun 2015 @ 9:19am

    Nomenclature Issues.

    "Michael Steinbach, [is] arguing that above all else companies should work to prevent encryption."

    Nonsense! Mike, turn that frown upside-down -- just announce and enforce a new mandatory business encryption standard. That solves all issues: mandatory encryption AND an automatic embedded security key that only the good guys* can use.

    Double ROT-13 for consumers! High security issues? Use twice-as-hard quadruple ROT-13.

    *BAD guys will be shown only the highly encrypted contents so absolutely no issues here.

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

  • icon
    amberb (profile), 5 Jun 2015 @ 9:42am

    All the security breaches lately say we need encryption more than ever

    Just read the news on any given day lately, and there is some major data breach. We need better security, not weaker or no security. I think they are grandstanding with these arguments while they quietly are figuring out how to hack into anything.

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

  • identicon
    Justme, 5 Jun 2015 @ 10:12am

    Does the Government use encryption?
    Why?

    Should citizens be denied that same protection?
    Why?

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

    • icon
      sigalrm (profile), 5 Jun 2015 @ 1:11pm

      Re:

      "Does the Government use encryption?" A: Yes.
      "Why?": A: To protect itself and its citizens from the Very Bad People(tm) who wish to do Very Bad Things(tm).

      "Should citizens be denied that same protection?": A: Yes.
      "Why?": To allow the government to properly protect itself and its citizens from the Very Bad People(tm) who wish to do Very Bad Things(tm).

      From a certain perspective, that logic makes a lot of sense. From most other perspectives, not so much. But when your job mandate is to make sure that "never again will there be a (9/11, world trade center, boston marathon bombing, etc)", it must get pretty easy after a while to accomplish the necessary mental gymnastics. It's the same pressure that eventually allows a person to turn everyone who disagrees with their methods into terrorist sympathizers.

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

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 5 Jun 2015 @ 1:45pm

        Re: Re:

        But when your job mandate is to make sure that "never again will there be a (9/11, world trade center, boston marathon bombing, etc)",

        Then your job is impossible as even the most totalitarian regime cannot prevent all internal or external attacks. They may however be able to keep the less effect one hidden from the world.

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 5 Jun 2015 @ 11:13am

    So these guys don't want any encryption, AND it looks someone just stole all the governments HR data. Seeing how these two super geniuses are government employees, I can only hope the group that has all that data, does something really fun, public and devastating with James Comey, and Michael Steinbachs social security numbers. This is going to be SO much fun to watch, where's my popcorn.

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 5 Jun 2015 @ 12:01pm

    Yes...Yes

    *Mr Burns hands* we have to spy on every communication! If we don't the world will end and a thousand years of chaos will rise! Muahahaha...

    Sorry but statements like this just bring the worst out of me

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 5 Jun 2015 @ 12:54pm

    encryption vs implementation.

    I wouldn't say we need stronger encryption- we need to eliminate weaker encryption; and more then anything, improve implimentation of the good encryption we have. Poor implimentation is the #1 threat to secure encryption.

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

  • identicon
    Personanongrata, 5 Jun 2015 @ 1:35pm

    Will The Terrorists Please Stand Up

    Note to the House Homeland Security Committee:

    The terrorists can be found at 1600 Pennsylvania Washington DC across town at Capitol Hill and across the Potomac in Arlington Virgina.

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 5 Jun 2015 @ 2:36pm

    The classic example of meglomaniac!

    The FBI seems to claiming the right and duty of eavesdropping on everything spoken, written or thought in the USA or the world. How better to describe a megalomaniac nutcase? The FBI seems to define themselves as insane both personally and institutionally, incrementally day by day with full political backing. Is somebody spiking the water supply in Washington with hallucinogenics the last 10 years.

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

  • icon
    tqk (profile), 5 Jun 2015 @ 3:00pm

    "Going dark".

    FYI, from Life after Snowden - journalists' new moral responsibility:
    Whenever I hear members of the security services claiming the bad guys are “going dark” on them, I think of an essay with that very title by professor Peter Swire, an internet, privacy, and encryption expert who worked at the White House, and was part of President Obama’s review panel into the issues raised by Snowden.

    “Due to changing technology, there are indeed specific ways that law enforcement and national security agencies lose specific previous capabilities’” he wrote in his November 2011 essay. “These specific losses, however, are more than offset by massive gains. Public debates should recognize that we are truly in a golden age of surveillance. By understanding that, we can reject calls for bad encryption policy. More generally, we should critically assess a wide range of proposals, and build a more secure computing and communications infrastructure.”

    It's a good read summing up Snowden's legacy (so far). I wonder why the administration is ignoring experts they themselves hired to inform themselves.

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

    • icon
      That One Guy (profile), 5 Jun 2015 @ 5:14pm

      Re: "Going dark".

      Because the experts are telling them things that they don't want to hear. They don't want experts, they want yes-men, people to tell them that what they're doing is the correct thing, even, or especially if, it really, really isn't.

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 5 Jun 2015 @ 3:32pm

    FBI is terrorist.

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 5 Jun 2015 @ 4:42pm

    The former soviet union went under about 20 odd years ago and no doubt various dictatorial regimes keep collapsing so there is no shortage of people willing to be despots and dictators to the free world.

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

  • icon
    toyotabedzrock (profile), 5 Jun 2015 @ 10:56pm

    You mean we have to be nice to the whole world and actually end poverty now? Or we have to say goodbye to online shopping.

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

  • icon
    Tim Kirk (profile), 6 Jun 2015 @ 9:48am

    So I assume the FBI does NOT encrypt their agents' laptops. I assume that they have no problem with people getting their data. Oh, it's a one way street? You can be trusted, but not the citizens? Oh, I see. No thanks, I'll keep my information encrypted.

    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.