Slashdot Mirror
Former FBI Director James Comey Reveals How Apple and Google's Encryption Efforts Drove Him 'Crazy' (fastcompany.com)
An anonymous reader shares a report: In his explosive new book, A Higher Loyalty, fired FBI director James Comey denounces President Trump as "untethered to the truth" and likens him to a "mob boss," but he also touches on other topics during his decades-long career in law enforcement -- including his strong objection to the tech industry's encryption efforts. When Apple and Google announced in 2014 that they would be moving their mobile devices to default encryption, by emphasizing that making them immune to judicial orders was good for society, "it drove me crazy," he writes. He goes on to lament the lack of "true listening" between tech and law enforcement, saying that "the leaders of the tech companies don't see the darkness the FBI sees," such as terrorism and organized crime.
He writes, "I found it appalling that the tech types couldn't see this. I would frequently joke with the FBI 'Going Dark' team assigned to seek solutions, 'Of course the Silicon Valley types don't see the darkness -- they live where it's sunny all the time and everybody is rich and smart." But Comey understood it was an unbelievably difficult issue and that public safety had to be balanced with privacy concerns.
He writes, "I found it appalling that the tech types couldn't see this. I would frequently joke with the FBI 'Going Dark' team assigned to seek solutions, 'Of course the Silicon Valley types don't see the darkness -- they live where it's sunny all the time and everybody is rich and smart." But Comey understood it was an unbelievably difficult issue and that public safety had to be balanced with privacy concerns.
I hope it continues to drive him and others of his ilk crazy.
Do you really think strong encryption keeps your phone from being 'hacked'. All it does - and all it's supposed to do - is keep someone in possession of your phone from reading its contents without unlocking it. But once you've unlocked your phone and the OS is running, any malware you've got on it has no problem reading all your data, stealing your bank account, etc.
Now I'm not saying that it's not a good thing to have your phone encrypted - and strongly so. But let's not pretend that law enforcement - or even bad government actors - are the same thing as your everyday fraudsters that are able to steal your info just fine with the best encryption Apple can provide. Encryption does not protect your from OS bugs and malware that you installed and granted access to your device.
Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
How about the leaks that could cost him is license to practice law?
Let's look for more information
The Moonie Times, Zero Hedge, World Nut Daily, Daily Caller, The Blaze, etc, etc, the usual suspects.
What is the basis for this and why are no serious publications reporting on this lawsuit? Because Ty Clevenger's lawsuit has no basis and zero chance of succeeding.
The whole thing is based on an article claiming that 4 out of 7 of Comey's memos had confidential information, and therefore he must have forwarded at least one classified memo to his law-school friend.
But the article doesn't actually cover when the information was deemed classified, it could very well have been classified after the fact in an effort to tar Comey. It also doesn't give any indication whether Comey would have reasonably thought the information to be classified, in fact he explicitly testified that he prepared the memos to be unclassified.
Not to mention the original reporter and only source I found has a history of inaccurate reporting, so we could be missing some crucial context.
I stole this Sig
Odd how quickly you trust news stories that come from other biases only and from even less credible sources when you want them to be true.
How often do you put your own beliefs on news through the same process?
I subject my beliefs and sources of information to constant scrutiny.
But I'm under no obligation to treat the far-right propagandist cargo cults masquerading as news organizations with anything other than scorn.
Again with this one, I did my obligatory research, and in place of a fire I found clowns throwing smoke bombs.
I stole this Sig
That's what the DNC would like you to believe when really it was their fixing of the primary in favor of Hillary. Say what you like about Trump, at least he was able to win the primary without engaging in election fraud and voter suppression.
Why should any of use come out to support a candidate that couldn't be bothered to give us a reason why she should win other than vague platitudes and I'm a girl.
Can people in the FBI decide themselves who to be loyal too?
In the title, Comey is referring to Trump's demand of him for loyalty, which was highly inappropriate. The "higher loyalty" refers his loyalty to the Constitution of the United States, which rules above all men - including the President.
I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
for encryption the government is not a defacto 2nd party.
That would imply that you had the intention of sharing the information with them.
For communications, the other end of the conversation is the 2nd party.
For storage THERE Is NO SECOND PARTY!
The government is a 3rd party, as you had no intention of supplying them with access to this information.
They are trying to FORCE people who have committed no crime to make them a default 2nd party.
they have also show extreme bad faith in automatically recording and storing information illegally, without any knowledge of the public (whom they claim to represent) and keeping that information because they want it..They only got caught out by accident and did their very best to block that knowledge from the general public.
They have also established secret courts that claim to protect rights, however there is no public discussion of such things, no transparency, even long after the fact, and they have been caught intentionally lying about such things to hide their actions in court, destroying due process (parallel construction).
Is there any surprise that the public feel a need to protect themselves from such actions?
Note however that the government HAS worked to put in place protections for themselves against this, although with limited success, by trying to put in place exceptions for government officials.
That is not democracy, that is a surveillance state where the government wants the ability to dig through peoples history if and when it wishes for whatever purpose it wishes. It would be more democratically correct for the opposite to be in place - so the public has the right to dig through the history of the people asking to be placed in control.
Yes, and he has personally stated why. He didn't do it to hurt Clinton, he did it because he assumed she was going to win and thought it would help her to deal with this before her coronation.
Hillary lost because she was a lying, incompetent, corrupt psychopath with no charisma, no political skills, and no redeeming qualities: she caused life-long Democrats like myself to leave the party in disgust.
Polls showed her leading all the way until election day; the polls were simply wrong. Probably a lot of people who hated her hung up on pollsters, like I did. Why help these people manipulate me?
That's easy. Comey, in both cases. The thing is, Comey didn't think he was sabotaging her. He thought he was helping her by trying to get out a head when she became president. He was 100% sure just like those pollsters that said Hillary had a 98% to win.
That, in itself should bother every single person that believes that law enforcement should be politically neutral. He re-opened the case because he believed it would favor her.
Om, nomnomnom...