Slashdot Mirror


FBI Director Says Prolific Default Encryption Hurting Government Spying Efforts (go.com)

SonicSpike quotes a report from ABC News: FBI Director James Comey warned again Tuesday about the bureau's inability to access digital devices because of encryption and said investigators were collecting information about the challenge in preparation for an "adult conversation" next year. Widespread encryption built into smartphones is "making more and more of the room that we are charged to investigate dark," Comey said in a cybersecurity symposium. The remarks reiterated points that Comey has made repeatedly in the last two years, before Congress and in other settings, about the growing collision between electronic privacy and national security. "The conversation we've been trying to have about this has dipped below public consciousness now, and that's fine," Comey said at a symposium organized by Symantec, a technology company. "Because what we want to do is collect information this year so that next year we can have an adult conversation in this country." The American people, he said, have a reasonable expectation of privacy in private spaces -- including houses, cars and electronic devices. But that right is not absolute when law enforcement has probable cause to believe that there's evidence of a crime in one of those places, including a laptop or smartphone. "With good reason, the people of the United States -- through judges and law enforcement -- can invade our private spaces," Comey said, adding that that "bargain" has been at the center of the country since its inception. He said it's not the role of the FBI or tech companies to tell the American people how to live and govern themselves. "We need to understand in the FBI how is this exactly affecting our work, and then share that with folks," Comey said, conceding the American people might ultimately decide that its privacy was more important than "that portion of the room being dark." Comey made his remarks to the 2016 Symantec Government Symposium. The Daily Dot has another take on Comey's remarks, which you can read here.

30 of 367 comments (clear)

  1. They seem to think they have a say in this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Did they learn nothing from the encryption wars of the 1990s?

    1. Re:They seem to think they have a say in this by rahvin112 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Rich people with the money to hire good lawyers have been beating the justice system since the founding. If you have money you can hire a team of lawyers to attack every single thread of evidence. Poor people get a lawyer who can usually spend at best a couple hours on their case.

      This is one of the many advantages of being wealthy.

  2. "Adult conversation next year?" by Cornwallis · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Here's my take on that.

    Fuck you. We're not your children . Stop treating us as if we were.

    1. Re:"Adult conversation next year?" by amicusNYCL · · Score: 5, Insightful

      In other news, the director of the Burgler's Association says that prolific door locks are hurting their business efforts. He was joined by the director of the Peeping Tom's Union announcing that prolific window coverings are hurting their ability to stay competitive.

      Wow, that's weird that a technology designed specifically to protect against eavesdropping and unauthorized access makes a spy's job more difficult. You know what I want? I want a bunch of laws to get passed specifically to allow me to do my job with less effort and fewer skills, because my feelings get hurt when I have to actually work and use what I know. When I have an issue on a server that I'm having a hard time figuring out, I want someone to just call my phone with the solution. That would be fantastic, let's get right on that. In the meantime, I guess I'll just have to continue to do my damn job and get paid for the work that I actually do.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    2. Re:"Adult conversation next year?" by Copid · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's tough to compare the environment now to what law enforcement has "always" done in history, though. There never used to be a way for them to read every single letter and cable being sent and received everywhere, so in that sense, the power they're looking for is unprecedented, even if they promise only to use it in a way that's analogous to old school manual police work. And even the claim that they've "always" had access to the data they're asking for doesn't entirely hold up. They've never had, say, access to timestamped GPS data about everywhere a person has gone every day or years of archives of mail. In the idealized old days, they could start tapping your phone or reading your mail at a certain point in time and get data for that time window, but not everything you'd done for years before that. There are types and quantities of data about us that exist now because of smart phones and ubiquitous use of the Internet that simply didn't exist in the "good old days" he's pining for.

      So I think the fundamental claim he's making is at least a little bit flawed, and that's before we even get into discussions about whether it's technologically feasible or whether law enforcement can be trusted with the expanded powers.

      --
      An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
  3. Listen to the world's smallest violin play... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Go fuck yourself, federal government.

  4. Every word is undermined.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    When law enforcement agencies in the USA think "parallel construction" of the source of their evidence is acceptable or justifiable. Maybe if they hadn't be so underhanded and dirty in the first place, people might believe in them.

    1. Re:Every word is undermined.. by avandesande · · Score: 5, Insightful

      pretty much lost all credibility with blatantly unconstitutional seizure laws

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    2. Re:Every word is undermined.. by Moof123 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The blue wall of silence similarly degrades my trust in police and law enforcement.

      I fear our police, FBI, NSA, CIA, TSA, ATF, ICE, etc more than criminals these days, and by a decent margin.

    3. Re:Every word is undermined.. by Rakarra · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The blue wall of silence similarly degrades my trust in police and law enforcement.

      I fear our police, FBI, NSA, CIA, TSA, ATF, ICE, etc more than criminals these days, and by a decent margin.

      The worst things to have happened to the police in the last decades have been the disappearance of community policing and the decay of the inner city. No longer do the police walk around on the beat as a trusted and respected member of the community that everyone knows and has talked to. Instead, the police have developed a "perpetually under siege" mentality, with an us-vs-them attitude towards the community they patrol, ready to lash out at a moment's notice. They have more in common with partisan suppressors or soldiers fighting terrorists in Iraq during the worst of the occupation rather than the police of decades past.

    4. Re:Every word is undermined.. by MitchDev · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Please criminals are honest in the respect they want to rob and hurt you, as opposed to LEOs who SAY they are here to help and protect you, while violating your privacy and using "civil forfeiture" to steal from you....

  5. "Adult conversation"... with Comey!? by Sebby · · Score: 2, Insightful

    in preparation for an "adult conversation" next year

    You can't have an "adult" conversation with a child like Comey.

    --

    AC comments get piped to /dev/null
  6. The "bargain" used to include warrants. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The Feds were the ones that violated the "bargain".

  7. Good. by iCEBaLM · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Good.

  8. FBI Word games by JustNiz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    > "With good reason, the people of the United States -- through judges and law enforcement -- can invade our private spaces," Comey said, adding that that "bargain" has been at the center of the country since its inception.

    Yes, but for specific limited instances and after obtaining warrants for each case.
    What Comey/The FBI are actually demanding is our freedom to use encryption be completely removed so that they can perform warrantless mass monitoring on a national scale.

    1. Re:FBI Word games by chaosmind · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "With good reason, the people of the United States -- through judges and law enforcement -- can invade our private spaces," and those private spaces include houses and cars?

      I think your notion of specific limited instances & warrants is a little naive. Consider all the cases the #BlackLivesMatter movement want us to consider: citizens obeying the law and still getting gunned down by officers of the law with neither warrant nor true probable cause. This is a larger issue of our ability to trust not a nanny state, but a police state.

      How can we have an "adult conversation" with a fascist system wearing a Dudley Do-Right mask?

    2. Re:FBI Word games by swillden · · Score: 4, Insightful

      > "With good reason, the people of the United States -- through judges and law enforcement -- can invade our private spaces," Comey said, adding that that "bargain" has been at the center of the country since its inception.

      Yes, but for specific limited instances and after obtaining warrants for each case. What Comey/The FBI are actually demanding is our freedom to use encryption be completely removed so that they can perform warrantless mass monitoring on a national scale.

      To be fair, encryption does change the situation a bit. It creates a world where warrants do not work, not unless you can also be compelled to provide decryption keys/passwords... and even then, if the penalty for the crime you're alleged to have committed is worse than the penalty for refusing to divulge your password, you'll keep your mouth shut. Also, penalizing refusal to provide information runs into another problem (besides 5th amendment constraints): what if you legitimately can't provide the information, but can't convince the judge that you can't? How many innocent but forgetful people will we jail?

      So, this really is a new world for law enforcement. On the one hand, if encryption is banned or backdoored, it gives them unprecedentedly broad and deep surveillance, potentially routine global surveillance. On the other, if encryption is legal and routine, they find themselves simply unable to get information that in decades and centuries past they could have gotten with a warrant and a search of your home/office.

      There is an imperfect historical analogue: Very high security safes. In the past, people might keep possibly-incriminating evidence in a safe. If the safe was really, really good this occasionally created a situation where police could not get in because they lacked the tools and skills. Courts ruled they could not demand the combination. But the situation with encryption is different for a few reasons.

      First, it's different because high-quality safes are expensive and rare. making the problem correspondingly rare. Encryption is cheap and easy.

      Second, it's different because it's a pain to remember to keep all of your potentially-incriminating documents in a safe. Encryption can be automated so it's applied to everything. No need to think about it. Indeed, security advocates (like me) encourage encryption of absolutely everything, all the time.

      Third, it's different because while a safe can always be cracked given enough time and effort, proper encryption is effectively invulnerable. Barring bugs in implementation, or defects in key management processes (e.g. weak passwords), we have no reason to believe anyone can break current-generation cryptographic algorithms.

      So there is a real question that needs to be debated openly, in public. We need to understand the consequences of ubiquitous strong encryption on law enforcement, and we need to weigh that against privacy.

      And then we need to tell the cops "Sorry, privacy wins. And even if it didn't, the sort of police state we'd need to put in place to effectively restrict secure encryption is simply unacceptable". But we should have the data, and the open, honest public debate so that everyone can come to understand what is blindingly obvious to those who already understand encryption.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
  9. The room is dark ... for everyone by Hotawa+Hawk-eye · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yes, Director, the room you're charged with exploring is dark. It's dark not just for you but for everyone. This include people who want to steal our identities or the contents of our bank accounts, who want to take personal pictures or conversations and broadcast them to the world without our consent, who want to perform corporate espionage, who want to see us to prey upon us and our children. Turning on the light may let you see, but you're outnumbered by the criminals in the darkness who are begging you to flip that switch so they too can see.

    If you're willing to step it up and protect us from all those monsters in the dark, then tell us exactly how you plan to protect us and MAYBE we'll let you flip that switch. But somehow I don't think you want to commit the massive amount of resources that will be needed to protect us. If you don't, we want the light to stay off.

    1. Re:The room is dark ... for everyone by Ken+D · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes, stop letting them frame the debate as personal "privacy" versus national "security"

      This is about personal SECURITY versus national security.

      Every day people get hacked, corporations get hacked, the government gets hacked. We need more personal security not less.

  10. Constitutional Rights by Ziest · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The 4th amendment says

    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

    That means if the FBI wants me decrypt any of my documents they can show my lawyer a search warrant otherwise they can FUCK OFF. If you want to fight these fuckers you, yes you, can start by teaching other people how to use strong encryption and why they should use it all the time. Yea,the NSA has monster facilities to break encryption but the cost of that is not zero. There are more of us then there are of them.

    --
    Another day closer to redwood heaven
    1. Re:Constitutional Rights by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That means if the FBI wants me decrypt any of my documents they can show my lawyer a search warrant otherwise they can FUCK OFF.

      Even with a warrant, it has never been the case that a person could be compelled to translate the content of a document (a journal, for example) written in a private code. If you possess some form of codebook then they can force you to produce it with a subpoena, but that's pretty much as far as it goes.

      A search warrant means they get to search your property, with or without your permission. You have no obligation to help them find what they're looking for, much less help them make sense of it once it's been found.

      In any case this is less about individual warrants and more about preventing the manufacturers of popular electronics and software from making truly secure storage of personal data easy and ubiquitous. Encryption by default represents significant security benefits for the population at large, whereas its absence will have little or no impact on actual criminals beyond a bit of inconvenience. I can only conclude that the FBI is, perhaps unwittingly, taking the criminal's side on this issue—criminals stand to benefit more than anyone else from insecure systems.

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
  11. Re:It is clear who are the children by jedidiah · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If that's the best you've got, then you've got nothing.

    The Feds got caught with their hands in the cookie jar. They instigated all of this. They have no standing to whine about it.

    Part of being "grown up" is owning your mistakes.

    --
    A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
  12. Done and done by nospam007 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ""Because what we want to do is collect information this year so that next year we can have an adult conversation in this country."

    But we are already having that conversation:

    We as adults, don't want you to spy on us and we'll do everything we'll have to reach that goal, even if we have to import our gadgets from one of the other 194 countries, where they don't give a fuck about your reasons.

    You, OTOH are throwing a tantrum like a brat that has to do the bed himself for the first time in his life.

  13. Well... by God+of+Lemmings · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Comey seems to think he's the adult in the conversation.

    --
    Non sequitur: Your facts are uncoordinated.
  14. Re:And so here we are. by hondo77 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I don't think "pretty smart" means what you think it means.

    --
    I live ze unknown. I love ze unknown. I am ze unknown.
  15. Adult Conversation by jxander · · Score: 4, Insightful

    We, the people, have already had an adult conversation.

    You were not invited, Mr. Comey, as you did not meet the criteria.

    In that conversation, we decided it best to encrypt our communications.

    Maybe if you behave yourself, you will be invited to the next adult conversation.

    --
    This signature is false.
  16. They are talking about new laws. by duckintheface · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The "adult conversation" the FBI says it's planning is a call for criminalization of any encryption that the FBI can't break. They want a back door and if you won't give it to them, they will put you in jail. Or use the powers of the NDAA to hold you without trial or "rendition" you to a country like Egypt where you can be tortured without anyone noticing.

    This is an FBI which not only has broken the law regarding surveillance of US citizens, but then lied about it to Congress. The FBI may be correct that some terrorists will succeed because their communications are encrypted. That is better than living under an FBI shadow government that thinks it is above the law. We don't have to speculate about the intent of the FBI. We already know they broke the law and lied to Congress. And still have not been prosecuted for it.

    --
    "He took a duck in the face at 250 knots." -- William Gibson, Pattern Recognition
    1. Re:They are talking about new laws. by nnull · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The sad part is, the real terrorists don't even use encryption and they still can't figure it out or find them.

    2. Re:They are talking about new laws. by duckintheface · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And what has happened since then? 20 years ago we had not had a major terrorist attack that killed 3000 people in New York. Since then we have had the Patriot Act and secret FISA courts. Politicians are afraid to stand up for civil liberties because they will be branded as "soft on terrorism". It's going to take courage and effort by all of us to stop the gradual removal of our privacy.

      --
      "He took a duck in the face at 250 knots." -- William Gibson, Pattern Recognition
  17. Get a warrant and I'll give you my pw by Facekhan · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I promise I'll give up my password when I get a warrant and verify it with my lawyer.

    The only reasons for backdoors are to violate the 4th amendment with mass surveillance or for ephemeral keys that get destroyed like an encrypted chat or phone call but they should not have been recorded without a warrant in the first place.