Slashdot Mirror
FBI Director Continues His Campaign Against Encryption
apexcp writes Following the announcements that Apple and Google would make full disk encryption the default option on their smartphones, FBI director James Comey has made encryption a key issue of his tenure. His blitz continues today with a speech that says encryption will hurt public safety.
Please think of the children!
The issue is the balance between public safety and personal privacy. Denying the citizen of any democracy the right to encryption of their personal communication is not an appropriate response to the perceived threat to public safety that same encryption would bring.
More like help protect us from the prying eyes of big brother.
just that simple, Director.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
You don't deserve privacy because criminals don't deserve privacy.
Anyone wanna bet that they have no trouble breaking this encryption, or they have secret backdoors? This is just a big advertising campaign to get people to think they can't break it.
I suspect, he is right — it will hurt public safety.
But it will improve individual privacy and America has always valued the cantankerous Individual above the glorious Collective, that other cultures prefer...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
It would help his position if the FBI were to go after Federal agencies (e.g. the NSA) for their illegal violation of citizen's privacy rights, and make it perfectly clear that the only searches of cell phones the FBI is interested in would be supported by probable cause and warrants from legitimate courts.
But I somehow think his reasoning is more on par with "we don't like people protecting their rights, because it makes it harder for us to violate them."
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Unless, they think they deserve privacy but don't want to give it to other people.
What about reporters investigating corruption among FBI? Will they be allowed encryption? Will the reporter have to admit they are investigating FBI, or will all reporters be allowed encryption?
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
When the people and organizations in government demonstrate trustworthiness, we will trust them to keep the keys.
Choice #1: my smartphone isn't encrypted, the FBI "protects" my safety
Choice #2: my smartphone is encrypted, the FBI can't get to my data.
I choose #2 thank you very much.
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
~pinky to lips~
every time you encrypt a file, I will kill a kitten~
Muwhaa haha hahaaaaaaa!!!
The Digital Sorceress
No more hacking, nothing to hide, everything is free, no more locks on any sort of data, what an epic success!
perhaps we need ot remind the fbi of the 2001 hack that had a famous mug sold with the exploit code on it ...930 mugs later it didnt get taken down ...it had hte cafepress image turned
LOL
that is your future if you do not encrypt
waves
no more encrypted data streams. Watch identity theft skyrocket. Man in the middle attacks intercepting cleartext transactions and account info of every kind. Destroying everyone's livelihood. How is that public safety?
Don't criminals already use encryption? Am I supposed to, out of pure love for the government, not encrypt my devices so that if I ever become a criminal the FBI can more easily find me? Wouldn't that just make me a more likely target for crimials? Or perhaps the FBI is suggesting that companies should not provide encryption by default, causing customers will choose a competitor's product instead? This is silly: the only reason to start this campaign is if the end goal is to convince legislators to make encryption illegal.
This is the same imbecile that told Congress that Americans who are known to have fought for ISIS cannot be immediately arrested or denied entry--they'll just be "closely monitored"--cuz they're US citizens with valid passports.
As we Americans all know, if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear. So come now, you know you don't have to worry about your "elected officials" and they're appointees doing bad things. I mean after all why would you want to impede them in anyway at all?
Though on second though, you know what? I'm just going to keep on encrypting my phones, hard drives, anything I can. Partly because of this, and partly because you know... I might somehow lose them, and not want anyone to access _my_ data.
if my wife asks a question, and I'm not paying attention, and then I answer wrong does it still count
These government employees have taken an oath to uphold the constitution. Many in government seem to have lost sight of who they serve. Citizens should not accept the argument that it is easier for them to do their job by collecting and analyzing the communications of US citizens without a warrant. Encryption protects US citizens against criminal activity by making it harder for the criminals to do THEIR job. The FBI can always get a warrant when they need one.
It is not our job to make his job easier or effortless.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Our phones and computers are the modern day equivalent of "papers and effects".
Encryption affords us the security promised by this amendment.
Does this make the collection of data by various "letter agency" and police law enforcement departments tougher? YEP!
Does it raise the possibility of criminals "slipping through the system"? YEP!
I, for one, REFUSE to be pre-criminalized , simply because I don't choose to automatically drop trou whenever someone demands to see "ze papers". The only appropriate answer for this sort of thing is "Fuck you. Get a warrant."
I also refuse to abrogate my rights and privileges due to an idiotic appeal to emotion (think of the CHILDREN!)
*I* am not victimizing children. But, the way law enforcement wants to set things up, EVERYONE gets lumped in as would-be rapists, molesters and murderers.
Jim Comey needs to be told to shut the hell up, do his job *RIGHT* and be a good little soldier.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
FBI director James Comey has made encryption a key issue of his tenure.
That was a fight that was 'lost' in the 90s. Too many large companies now rely on encryption......as in every bank, every for-profit website, any website that has the IT department using ssh to manage servers, every company that uses remote desktop to manage servers.....and soon every company that accepts credit cards.
Sorry man, encryption is here to stay. Learn to pick your battles because nothing's going to happen with that one.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
To effectively violate the 4th amendment as it is. I have a great deal of trouble believing his concerns are legitimate and complete.
What's more the greatest problem with a full on surveillance state that can and does relentlessly bring the full weight of the state against people without the means to properly defend themselves is the number of false positives can easily exceed the number of actual criminals.That would be actual crimes, not the simple fact the complexity of our legal system renders most people guilty of something.
It's a good thing that government demanding and getting limitless, secret access to every accessible detail of everyone's life has no history of being used for political vengeance and oppression, otherwise he'd be advocating for policies that have an unbroken, horrifying, outrageous, infamous track record.
As always, all IMO. Insert "I think" everywhere grammatically possible.
Seriously. By a large margin I am most likely to die due to an age related illness.Somewhere after that are non-age related illnesses. Then accidents.Then Suicide. Being killed by "bad people" is WAY down the list. Why on earth should I give up my rights to protect myself from a tiny chance of death?
Obviously people in power would like more control over me, but why should I agree to it?
History shows that this mentality is not permanent. British rule over the US is a prime example that every US student should learn in public schools. People took a lot of crap from the Brits for a long time, and there was a point where momentum changed and we had a revolt.
The US is not very far from this today.
On the momentum behind the pro nanny state, most of the people in this movement are on the government dime (either work for the Government or receive some form of Welfare). It does not take a very big event to change this. If something happens where the Government can not handle the welfare, those receiving it will quickly change sides. Again, a historical normal which is easy to find.
The big question for most of us is how long they can procrastinate the collapse of the dollar, which has been looming for at least a decade. The US will run out of credit at some point, and when that happens the proverbial shit will hit the fan.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
No, the modern day equivalent of "papers and effects" are... your papers and effects. If you want protection to be applied to technology that didn't exist in the Founding Father's time, then do the honest thing and press for e.g. a constitutional amendment. Trying to stretch the Founding Fathers' words of over two centuries ago to your pet cause in 2014 is a can of worms that no one should want to open.
It's like you don't understand what "effects" are.
As soon as the Truecrypt news came out, along with rumors that their canary had been tripped, I had personally suspected that NSA/FBI/etc was behind it (as did countless others, I'm certain). Perhaps it was a good enough implementation that didn't have any usable backdoors (intentional or otherwise), so they felt it best to forcefully shut it down. This was just a hunch, though but because of this I will question any newer fork of the TC project.
By extension, I would expect that more widespread software (ie, Bitlocker) already has the required bypasses, which would fully explain why the TC project recommended users move over to Bitlocker. There is certainly more to this than is publicly known.
In other news from the article:
"Even as critics like John J. Escalante, chief of detectives for the Chicago police department, say that "Apple will become the phone of choice for the pedophile"
As an iPhone user, I'm getting tired of their slanderous warmongering...
Our phones and computers are the modern day equivalent of "papers and effects".
No, the modern day equivalent of "papers and effects" are... your papers and effects. If you want protection to be applied to technology that didn't exist in the Founding Father's time, then do the honest thing and press for e.g. a constitutional amendment. Trying to stretch the Founding Fathers' words of over two centuries ago to your pet cause in 2014 is a can of worms that no one should want to open.
"papers and effects"
Your personal effects include your smartphone. If the government wants to peek at it or seize it, they need to get a warrant.
Also, they want people to NOT use encryption at the same time that they're warning companies of the attacks by Chinese cyber-hackers. Someone needs to tell this guy "You can't have it both ways, dude."
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Public safety is hurt by cars, since over 30,000 people die in car crashes every year in the US. Not only that, criminals use cars. Does the FBI Director think you should not have the right to use a car?
How many people are killed by encryption?
If the FBI director is claiming to be so staunchly against something, I'm quite apt to be pleased and support this.
But let's not forget that encryption hasn't stopped government surveillance as seen in the various leaks over the past year. This is likely double-speak and for all we know, the FBI and other agencies could already have the keys needed to override the encryption. Google, Microsoft, Apple, et al have proven already that their customer's privacy, whether from the government or another third-party, is something they happily ill lie about all the while saying "we had to do it--they made us!"
Less-geeky computer repair alternative for Lansing, MI
FBI / NSA: Dude, you're becoming a monster.
Citizen: You made me this way...
All encryption does is protect the individual from self incrimination and prevent them from using illegally captured traffic and metadata to do parallel construction a.k.a. lying about the source of evidence.
When a politician whines.
In addition to the other responses, have you never heard of the spirit of the constitution? There is more to the constitution than just interpreting everything 100% literally; you can take intent into account.
between banning encryption and banning banks, safes, and safety deposit boxes?
Because that's who the FBI work for... our precious Jewish 'masters'...
Can't have people finding out that the 'holocaust' was a lie, can we...
www.nazigassings.com
Quick, mod me down, don't think for yourself! Don't question what the JEWS have been telling you all your life, they'd never lie to you, would they...
As an atheist of Jewish extraction, I can tell you that the dues I pay to the International Jewish Conspiracy don't have the same benefits they used to have. It used to be that we'd get to choose from at least half a dozen christian babies for our blood drinking ceremonies. Now, we're lucky if we get two. Also, the royalty checks (you know, the one that's our skim) from all the world's economic output) have been down quite a bit since 2009.
It's getting harder every day to be the masters of the world. Sigh.
My phone is one of my personal belongings, therefore one of my effects. No redefinition needed. Amendent IV already affirms our right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures of our effects, hence phones, laptops, etc -- current police and border-guard practice notwithstanding.
Done.
The long, long history of American jurisprudence has determined that your effects are materials held at home. Your smartphone travelling in your pocket as you go out in public, just like your wallet, is not an effect. Things on your person can be searched based upon probable cause without the need for a warrant.
James Cummy is fascist douchelord who I hope dies slowly and painfully from a raging yeast infection and prostate cancer.
I'm usually not the religious kind of guy, but it fits far too well to just let it slip.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
We have been getting a glut of black and brown babies and they "said" they were christian. The asians ones leave a bad after taste. They also said that once this ebola thing kicked in, we should be able to get fresh stock of everything.
As for the royalty checks, don't get me started!!!
the only winner is another state.
The constitution forbade you and your alphabet organization brethren from invading privacy, stealing information and whatnot.
You chose to disregard that law and commit acts of treason against the people of this nation.
YOU are the ones that are causing grave damage to this country, YOU are the ones hurting people, YOU are the ones who should be spending the rest of your lives in gitmo, along with every other member of the government and their agencies that did NOT stand up to these treasonous actions and attrocities.
Hell, you should probably be put to death since it was treason during what some in the government illegally consider a time of war.
So we the people decide to lock you out, so that you cannot illegally listen in to conversations, pry into our private documents, who cares, it's less than you deserve you fucking morons.
deserver neither.
Locking everyone in a jail cell would increase public safety greatly as well.
I'l take my chance and live life, rather than cower in some hole.
Things on your person can be searched based upon probable cause without the need for a warrant.
I guess you're not aware of this year's Supreme Court decision, Riley vs. California, in which they determined that police require a warrant to search your phone. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06...
Why?
Papers... and effects. Do you know what "effects" are? Here's a quick google search that turns up an answer right in the search results, no further linking needed. And it's right there, under noun, definition 3. That's the one the constitution meant. It says:
So a phone or computer is quite literally (and I mean "literally" in the literal sense) an effect.
Warrant or GTFO.
Only if it can be reasonably assumed that these things can pose a threat to officers...a cell phone doesn't meet that requirement. Are you supposing it's some sort of IED?
I'd like to know how Jim Comey reconciles his position on encryption with the requirements set for in the CJIS Security Policy (version 5.3) by the FBI's CJIS division which includes tidbits like those in sections 5.13.2 "enforcement of folder or disk level encryption" and 5.13.3 "encrypt all Criminal Justice Information resident on the device."
In an ideal world, individuals would use encryption that would protect their privacy from the run-of-the-mill attacker but not from the government.
The public backlash to such a model is the result of people not trusting their government (and by extension the police).
Tackle the lack of trust and these problems go away. This is a social problem, not a technical one.
Dear Mr. Government,
"Encryption" shouldn't be at the top of this list right now.
Signed,
Everyone who isn't wearing a full face respirator.
If all browsers in November will have SSL3 turned off by default, then he won.
All because the NSA wanted a crypto back door.
Note: fixing SSL won't fix the other methods, which involve spoofing cell and provider feeds and using the other computing devices inside your cell and network like your printers and GPUs and (long list).
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Have gnu, will travel.
The asians ones leave a bad after taste
Hey! That's racist!
He used an example of how data on a phone was used to exonerate teens of a crime to strengthen his case against encryption. If you have evidence on your phone that will help prove your innocence you're far more willing to give up the password. The only instance that encryption would ever be a problem would be when gathering evidence to prove guilt.
For that, you'll have to talk to Motorola and the FCC.
Most p25 traffic isn't encrypted anyway. There is no need and some definite disadvantages to p25 as well. And there are cryptographic weaknesses.
Apple's leverage of open source encryption concepts will always be a few years more advanced, if not decades more, than embedded p25-compliant radios.
Fact is the law has broken the trust of the American people. They are getting caught lieing just as mush as criminals are. I have NO trust in our police, i have NO trust in the NSA,I have NO trust in the FBI,I have NO trust in the CIA, I have no trust in our lawmakers. Because they have all broken the laws of our land. Its time for a clean sweep people, Vote them all out and start fresh this November. Get out and Vote or shut up.
Jack of all trades,master of none
Matt 22:21
"Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's"; but OTOH He never exactly said WHAT things are Caesar's... (hint; the answer is probably NOT "... well, let's go ask Caeser ").
The US Constitution (the formal basis of any (US) governmetal authority (other than "I have a bigger gun than you do", of course )) does not limit the rights of the people; it limits the powers of the government... Amendment X: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
ODDNESS: Posting as AC; $CAPTCHA="trials"
The FBI's abandoning its primary task of watching the watchers and instead invading the privacy of every American is PRECISELY why Google's and Apple's taking a stand is needed.
Now with the FBI sucking up to Congress rather than scrutinizing them and instead continuing to defile our constitutional rights, who is left to watch the watchers? That WAS the job of the FBI.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
I have nothing to say to this but "the chair is against the wall". Also. "John has a long mustache" and X35DNK685.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Time for popcorn!!!
Cloudiot: A person who does not see offsite storage as a way to lose control over access to his or her own data.
I don't get how encryption can hurt public safety. The courts have been quite clear the government can get a warrant and force you to unencrypt your files. So the only thing the FBI has to fear here is if they were operating outside the bounds of the constitution and trying to avoid judicial scrutiny.
Wow.... Had the FBI and NSA followed the law to the letter, this sort of thing wouldn't be necessary. Now they've f**ked up and made their jobs harder. It's just so sad.... cry me a river. They've proven the FBI and the NSA *CAN NOT* and *SHOULD NOT* be trusted. By anyone. And for the record, you don't get to tell software vendors or users what they can and can't do with their property. Comey can go f**k himself and the horse he rode in on. We don't need him or the FBI.
Don't tread on me. 'nuff said.
... with separation of powers, the police have the good decency not to engage in matters of political policy, and on the occasion they do, they get slapped on the wrist.
I am literally a terrorist for not letting an FBI agent walk into my apartment at will and dig through my fridge. Same logic.
Used and implemented properly, encryption can also provide protection against fraud. It would seem though that the FBI would prefer to encourage agencies around the world to snoop rather than actually *prevent* crime.
Still, I've heard that cops aren't exactly fond of doing the hard work of following proper protocols and procedures, opting for short cuts. It's a bit insulting that they constantly claim they don't have enough search and seize powers however when they start criticizing the one method that may protect my property from a criminal activity they will have no interest in pursuing, I'd give them the advice that any other employee would get:
Stop complaining and do your job.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
Because kidnappers won't give the key to their list of encrypted demands.
Because robbers won't leave the key to the deviously encrypted plans they conveniently dumped after the heist.
Seriously, this argument is along the lines of "I speak French every time you can't hear me".
What this spook is really demanding is an absence of digital privacy. With police around the world demand 'seize and search' powers, this dystopia will be coming to a traffic stop near you.
Had the goobernmint not let the NSA run roughshod over the constitution and the rights of people both foreign and domestic, the general public would not be baying for the means to keep them out.
The goobernmint brought this upon themselves through their abuses.
Screw 'em.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
Why not "Obama Admin Continues Its Campaign Against Encryption"? If the Obama admin was against it, they'd fire him. Obama or Bush, the result is the same, the government does not want encryption.
More often than not, I'm happy to hold dialogue on Philosophy and try to teach people. In this particular case, I see no benefit for doing so. Your comment is a tangent which won't invalidate any of my points. Therefor, I lack the energy to even try. That said, I'll give you a few points of history to study which will put you on the path to my perspective.
1. Plato's The Republic. The whole thing, not just a single allegory or book. I don't expect you to get it at the first read, but rather grasp basic concepts and definitions. No offense is intended, I still learn new things every time I read the book. Frankly I have read at least 5 translations and each of those several times. I prefer "The Cambridge Text" version since it includes most of the historical references you need. As you suggested earlier, this requires a scholarly approach, not a glance or glimpse of the book. Main goals are to understand the definition of Justice, and "The Allegory of the Cave" completely. From Socrates's perspective it is the duty of the enlightened to free the masses from the cave, and that people will fight and to the death to remain in the cave.
Next, study history. Start with Athens and it's fall and follow that up through the US Revolution and find the root causes for the revolutions. While surely we can find numerous corollary explanations, a main theme is that the masses are oppressed to a point where there is no choice but to revolt. If you don't like US History, try the French Revolution from roughly the same time period. If you don't like Western history, try the Bolshevik Revolution where again the oppressed masses was the theme of the revolution (with obviously different results than a Republic). More recently, we have the Ukraine which revolted for the same reasons, though in fairness quite different extremes. Constant revolutions in Africa and the Middle East over the same theme again. The difference in stability between the US and Egypt for example, is that Egypt's revolutions were not successful in removing entrenched people who behave as an oppressive oligarchy where the US built in numerous protections (which continually been revoked over the last couple of decades).
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Since when was a cell phone in general needed or even really used for kidnappings and robberies??? Most people with cell phones are well aware that they can be used as a tracking device which is far more dangerous to a criminal than securing the data on the phone.
His blitz continues today with a speech that says encryption will hurt public safety.
Clean your own house first. If you really wanted to help public safety you would start prosecuting crooked cops whenever they get caught on camera breaking the law. This would also help police departments regain some of their lost respect.
As if anybody gives a shit what he has to say.
And not just a victim of fanatics that see terrorists and child-abuse images everywhere (apparently, pictures are now more evil than actually abusing children...), but also a victim of any better-equipped criminal hacking enterprise.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Alcohol consumption hurts public safety. Firearms hurt public safety. Tobacco hurts public safety. Irresponsible drivers hurt public safety. The Koch brothers hurt public safety. Influenza hurts public safety. Anti-vaxxers hurt public safety. Obesity and the food industry hurt public safety. This sort of public shit kills hundreds of thousands of your citizens a year, and you're worried about encryption on my smart phone?
DaveyJJ
do these people not understand?
'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Phone theft is a pretty common issue around the world. Smart phones have a lot of confidential personal and business information. They can also be used to compromise many online services used by the device that use email or SMS verification. Smart phones are very attractive targets for criminals.
Encryption is one sensible precaution to reduce the damage done if a phone is stolen. Remotely wiping a stolen phone is another sensible precaution. These measures can be effective against criminals but can also make the job of law enforcement more difficult.
Law enforcement seems to want us all to be less safe so their job can be easier, while they fail to deal with the criminals that we are trying to protect ourselves from. The FBI seems to be stating that they want to continue to be lazy and incompetent.
It doesn't really matter what law enforcement wants anymore. Public awareness is increasing with leaking of nude celebrity pictures and other breaches that made the mainstream media. People want to be able to protect their data. Even if Google and Apple fail their customers by backing down there will be other commercial and free options for users to protect themselves.
The only reason James Comey whines about the dangers of encryption is because it will help people forget about the 99% probability of AES being broken and being selected exactly because it was known as broken within the NSA. It would be very foolish of the NSA to say that they can crack any crypto like a nut (except properly practiced OTP).
It is my recommendation to use true 3-3-DES (not DES-X). That gives you only 96 bit effective strenght, but that 96 bit is very solid and no progresss has been made to lower it in recent years. Essentially, the NSA messed up, when they strengthened the original DES algorythm, arguing they can exhaust the 56-bit keyspace by playback from storage, thus no need to crack. However, they failed to consider that DES is very conductive to serial-connected multiple use, thus multiplying crypto strength at thre expense of somewhat miserable speed. On the other hand, today's CPU can run 3-3-DES faster than Carl Lewis.
Or covering your mouth while talking!
I just wanted to add another comment...
"You hold a [search warrant] on everyone on Earth and call it protection," he says. "This isn't freedom, this is fear."
Much Madness is divinest Sense --
To a discerning Eye --
Much Sense -- the starkest Madness
James Comey is more dangerous than ISIS.
Best power post ever
The summary should describe this person as a former FBI director, since:
1. The right to privacy is protected under the 9th Amendment, as a right "retained by the people", and the 10th Amendment, as a right "reserved to the people".
2. Encryption is a means of protecting the right to privacy.
3. FBI directors, like all police officers, all senior government officials, and all legal professionals, are required to swear oaths to uphold the Bill of Rights, such oaths being preconditions for holding these positions.
As he has clearly demonstrated his unwillingness to abide by his oath, he fails to meet the precondition required for this position, and is thus a former FBI director. No act of Congress, no act of the President, no court order is required to implement this: the oath alone does so.
what the fuck does intel know about me?
Captcha: worrying
...
The statute, outlawing the provision of “material support” to designated terrorist organizations, does not violate free-speech and free-association protections of the First Amendment, and it is not unconstitutionally vague, the majority justices declared...
That doesn't come close to addressing encryption, warrants, or search and seizure. What The Hell?
Let the butthurt flow through you, James Comey!
How will our greatest ally cope without our money and our secrets. It's like another shoah.