Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

James Comey: the Man Who Wants To Outlaw Encryption

Posted by samzenpus on from the man-with-a-terrible-plan dept.

Patrick O'Neill writes: "There has not been a tradeoff between liberty and security in our response to terrorism in this country and in our efforts to offer security to the people of the United States," said James Comey, now the director of the FBI. Comey was the number two man in the Department of Justice during the Bush years when NSA and law enforcement surveillance of Americans grew to unprecedented heights. Now he's pushing to stop encryption by default on Apple and Android devices.

12 of 241 comments (clear)

  1. Seriously...? by Nostromo21 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    And this guy is the director of the FBI...for real? :-/

    1. Re:Seriously...? by davester666 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Everyone's broken some law. He's just going through the list of people in the US.

      But it's hard to go out and investigate, come up with leads, run them down. Instead, you just have all the major ISPs [wired and wireless] track who is using encrypted communications, and report to you their name, address and current physical location. Then you make up a reason to search through their home, financial records and internet history [thanks for the data, NSA], and you'll find something.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    2. Re:Seriously...? by mark-t · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Good people have plenty to hide.... primarily from bad people, mind you, but plenty to to hide nonetheless.

      --
      File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
    3. Re:Seriously...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And some of those bad people work for the government. What's very disturbing to me is the NSA, CIA, and FBI are now shopping their services around to every podunk police department and also largish corporations. With what appears to be no vetting or tracking how the information is used. Nothing but systematic abuse will come out of this.

    4. Re:Seriously...? by Jason+Levine · · Score: 4, Insightful

      A "backdoor" isn't a fantasy. The quote was "“You can't build a backdoor that only the good guys can walk through,” The key words are "only the good guys." Say I make an incredible encryption tool but build in a backdoor for the FBI to use. (Arguably, this makes the encryption tool no longer "incredible", but just accept it for now.) The theory is that only the FBI uses this backdoor while the hackers try in vain to break into the front door. The reality, though, is that - after trying the front door - the hackers will examine the encryption and will discover the open back door. Then, it's just a matter of time before they figure out how to get into it.

      You can make a backdoor to any program. What you can't do is keep "bad guys" from entering that back door while allowing "good guys" in. If a backdoor exists, the bad guys WILL find it and WILL exploit it. It's just a matter of time.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    5. Re:Seriously...? by ATMAvatar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm not sure why we keep talking about good guys and bad guys. With their invasive surveillance and contempt for our liberties, it's pretty clear that the NSA, FBI, et. al. are the "bad guys", too.

      --
      "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
  2. This is what the war on terror gives us. by bejiitas_wrath · · Score: 5, Insightful

    More and more surveillance of Americans instead of the supposed enemies. This is the US after 9/11 and the Boston bombing. Welcome to 1984.

    --
    liberare massarum ex ignorantia, clausa descendit molestie.
  3. correct by roman_mir · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Correct, there has not been a tradeoff between liberty and security in our response to terrorism in this country and in our efforts to offer security to the people of the United States. What there has been is a complete and utter disregard for liberty and destruction of individual rights. Forget tradeoffs, the Constitution was abolished, that is what happened.

    --
    You can't handle the truth.
  4. Liberty? by Etherwalk · · Score: 5, Insightful

    False, although mostly true so far. Notably, the intrusiveness of airport security has gone way up, for the big example on the false side.

    Mostly what there's been so far has been a tradeoff between *privacy* and security. As in none of the former.

    I feel for the guy--his job is to prevent another 9/11. He gets the call if a city blows up. And he probably really cares about defending liberty.

    But unfortunately, pervasive surveillance without amazingly well-engineered procedural oversight and security will inevitably lead to tyranny. Anyone who doesn't see that isn't stepping far enough back. He's concerned about the next five years; I'm concerned about the next twenty or fifty.

    I suppose there's an AI issue, too--a singularity is going to get into this data in a few decades. I can't predict what an AI a hundred times smarter than any of us might do with it.

    1. Re:Liberty? by swillden · · Score: 5, Insightful

      In order to trade off some of A to get some of B, you have to actually get some of B. In this case, we've given a lot of A and gotten nothing for it.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
  5. Re:Hyperbole Much? by epyT-R · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yeah, but the reason he wants the default of 'no' is to make it easier to monitor communications. He doesn't give a shit about the 4th, naturally. The government shouldn't be dictating the default setting either, which is what he wants.

  6. Keep all your doors unlocked too by greggman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    because we might need to look in your house for terrorists. Also get rid of locks on car doors because we might want to randomly search your car