FBI Director Angry At Homebuilders For Putting Up Walls That Hide Any Crimes Therein
from the wtf dept
We already wrote about how law enforcement was freaking out over the (good) news that Apple and Google were making encryption a default on both iOS and Android. Then we had a followup where a recently retired FBI guy insisted that such encryption would have meant a kidnap victim died... until everyone pointed out that the entire premise of that story was wrong and the Washington Post had to change the entire thing. We had hoped that, maybe, just maybe the misguided whining and complaining wouldn't come from those in charge, but apparently that's not happening.On Thursday, FBI boss James Comey displayed not only a weak understanding of privacy and encryption, but also what the phrase "above the law" means, in slamming Apple and Google for making encryption a default:
"I am a huge believer in the rule of law, but I am also a believer that no one in this country is above the law," Comey told reporters at FBI headquarters in Washington. "What concerns me about this is companies marketing something expressly to allow people to place themselves above the law."First of all, nothing in what either Apple or Google is doing puts anyone "above the law." It just says that those companies are better protecting the privacy of their users. There are lots of things that make law enforcement's job harder that also better protect everyone's privacy. That includes walls. If only there were no walls, it would be much easier to spot crimes being committed. And I'm sure some crimes happen behind walls that make it difficult for the FBI to track down what happened. But we don't see James Comey claiming that homebuilders are allowing people to be "above the law" by building houses with walls.
[....]
"There will come a day -- well it comes every day in this business -- when it will matter a great, great deal to the lives of people of all kinds that we be able to with judicial authorization gain access to a kidnapper's or a terrorist or a criminal's device. I just want to make sure we have a good conversation in this country before that day comes. I'd hate to have people look at me and say, 'Well how come you can't save this kid,' 'how come you can't do this thing.'"
"I get that the post-Snowden world has started an understandable pendulum swing," he said. "What I'm worried about is, this is an indication to us as a country and as a people that, boy, maybe that pendulum swung too far."Wait, what? The "pendulum" hasn't swung at all. To date, there has been no legal change in the surveillance laws post-Snowden. The pendulum is just as far over towards the extreme surveillance state as it has been since Snowden first came on the scene. This isn't the pendulum "swinging too far." It's not even the pendulum swinging. This is just Apple and Google making a tiny shift to better protect privacy.
As Christopher Soghoian points out, why isn't Comey screaming about the manufacturers of paper shredders, which similarly allow their customers to hide papers from "lawful surveillance?"
But, of course, the freaking out continues. Over in the Washington Post, there's this bit of insanity:
“Apple will become the phone of choice for the pedophile,” said John J. Escalante, chief of detectives for Chicago’s police department. “The average pedophile at this point is probably thinking, I’ve got to get an Apple phone.”Um. No. That's just ridiculous. Frankly, if pedophiles are even thinking about encryption, it's likely that they already are using one of the many encryption products already on the market. And, again, this demonizing of encryption as if it's only a tool of pedophiles and criminals is just ridiculous. Regular everyday people use encryption every single day. You're using it if you visit this very website. And it's increasingly becoming the standard, because that's just good security.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: crime, encryption, fbi, james comey, john escalante, mobile encryption, overreaction
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The Vatican's wrongdoing was not in harboring pedophiles per se, but rather in their harboring child molesters and child-rapists (as well as related wrongdoing: failure to address problems in a timely fashion; failures and refusals to compensate victims adequately; widespread denials and obfuscation, etcetera).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I know a retired chief petty officer from the Navy, who retired about 4 years ago, who told me, before Snowden's revelations "that all calls are recorded." The retired Navy guy has alluded to even greater extent of the surveilance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
follow the logic
But wait! The new Apple phone has a bendy aluminum case, so the average pedophile will think "nah, I'll stick with my old phone, and keep lots of incriminating data on it."
Hurray for Apple, and inadequate user testing!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not even a decade old
Are these people so bad at their jobs now that they forgot how to do them in less than 10 years?
What if ISIS or some other crazy group managed to actually fly a small plane above the US and put off a nuke, effectively EMPing a large part of the US? Would ALL of the FBI and CIA suddenly be absolutely 100% useless then because they don't have computers?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not even a decade old
A step up from worse than useless.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not even a decade old
Then the US government should hire those people as Engineers because the altitude needed for such placement is well outside the operating envelope of a typical small plane.
Von Braun got a job after demonstrating what he could do, so its not like 'hiring the (ex) bad guy' would be new for the US.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not even a decade old
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not even a decade old
It would have to be a really huge nuke to EMP a large part of the US.
"Would ALL of the FBI and CIA suddenly be absolutely 100% useless then because they don't have computers?"
No. The really critical CIA (and NSA, military, and I assume FBI) computers are already hardened against EMP attacks. They would not lose those systems.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not even a decade old
But everyone else's equipment would be fried. Who would they spy on? How do you set up meetings to convince people to bomb bus stops if nobody has phones any more?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Privacy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Privacy?
4th Ammendment
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.
A right to be secure is not just having a right to privacy, it is also a right to not have the privacy violated by some thug with a government attachment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Privacy?
You're just not interpreting the word "unreasonable" correctly. See? All better.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Privacy?
Their totally reasonable thought process is that if they have a warrant that gives them the right to the data regardless of where it is.
That piece of paper totally gives them the right to crack all your passwords and get any data that you may have on some off-shore server, after all if you don't feel safe keeping in the US then it must be something illegal you are trying to hide.
This default encryption is denying them the right to get to the data that a judge says they can look for. They MUST fight against it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Privacy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Privacy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Seriously, this country has wayyyyy too many pussies, and it's a disgrace.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Perhaps he should start with his own agency, and make sure that they comply with little things like warrants, and big things like police abuse of power. Being in law enforcement should not mean that they are above the law either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: above the law
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Of course this is what they say
Yes, because if a pedophile gets an Apple phone, and uses it to store and track all sorts of pictures, they'll eventually end up on iCloud, where any law enforcement official (or random hacker for that matter), can access them as needed.
This is all just sly marketing to convince bad guys that they need to get the Government's favorite phone so they can be easily tracked.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Of course this is what they say
Sure, pedophiles are probably thinking that they need encryption. So is everybody else who's been paying attention. People have never been upset about the government serving warrants on pedophiles. They're upset about the government performing warrantless searches on everyone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wait, I thought this was just a tech blog.
Stop making me an accomplice to your crimes!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
x-ray proof walls?
And it would be a very useful tool for police, allowing them to peer into a house and check for babies and children, for instance, instead of having the SWAT team blindly toss stun grenades into a room that might just happen to land in a baby's crib.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: x-ray proof walls?
Aw, who am I kidding? "Knew or reasonably should have known they were wrong" is trumped by "officer safety." SWAT is only held accountable when their misconduct hurts someone with the right connections.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: x-ray proof walls?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: x-ray proof walls?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: x-ray proof walls?
Yes, lead foil is easily available and would do the trick. However, the devices that currently exist to look through walls don't use X-rays, they basically use radar or microwaves (both of which would also be mitigated by lead foil).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: x-ray proof walls?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: x-ray proof walls?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
that's what surprises me anymore.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
John J. Escalante is a moron
No, moron. The average pedophile -- who is WAY smarter than you -- is thinking "there is no way I should entrust my security to ANY phone, because the entire ecosystem is a disaster area".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: John J. Escalante is a moron
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: John J. Escalante is a moron
So after years of reading and reflection, yes, we all know a little bit about them and in particular about the methods that they use to evade detection, capture and prosecution. A lot of them are very paranoid, very smart, and very cautious. A few aren't, and those generally fall into two categories: (a) the stupid, who end up being caught because they're careless and (b) the patsies, who are set up by others in order to misdirect attention and to give the authorities some grist for their mill.
There are exceptions -- aren't there always? -- but the average phisher et.al. probably does a better job of managing his/her data security than most people who are actually paid to do so, have titles indicating that responsibility, and hold certifications saying that they allegedly know what they're doing. Of course they do: they're highly motivated because there's a big penalty for failure, whereas -- as we've seen at Target and Home Depot and everywhere else -- the consequences of even massive systemic failure are minimal and easily ducked by anyone who chooses to do so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: John J. Escalante is a moron
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Former FBI Director Hosko still arguing "kidnapping"
http://www.northjersey.com/opinion/opinion-apple-android-privacy-moves-could-be-deadly-1.1094531
Of course, the Bergen Record should also do something about this known-to-be-false story. How long will it last?
Regards
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Shit or the Pendulum
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I suppose with new technologies like FMRI, they can obtain the key without cooperation, but that seems pretty draconian.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So the walls still holds up if you realize the Feds feel they have a right to have a copy of your front door key. but if they don't have access to the door key they would feel the walls get in their way.
As the public we have seen them slide down the slope of corruption in that they continue to find ways to get data without a warrant but the feeling they have the right to get that data keeps growing because "security".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Does it not?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
can good security have benefits?
Law enforcement, however, fails to weigh those disadvantages against the benefits from better security. What if Apple's new measures prevent China from persecuting free-thinkers? What if they prevent Russian hackers from stealing a NATO summit's agenda from a staffer's HTC One? What if they prevent child pornographers from hacking into a child's phone and stealing their photographs?
Many people (Apple included) believe that the benefits will far outweigh the disadvantages. Yes, law enforcement's job might be a bit harder for the cases they must solve, but it appears that security could result in fewer criminal acts to begin with.
If law enforcement was able to veto every measure that enhanced user privacy, we would look a lot like China/Russia. There may be fewer child pornographers who get away with it... but at what cost?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: can good security have benefits?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: can good security have benefits?
At this point, if the only thing I knew about a law was that it would make law enforcement's job harder, I would vote for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If all else fails they'll just remote hack the iPhone using backdoors built into hardware, device drivers, Java Card OS, or remotely re-flash the phone's firmware.
Law enforcement has tons of options. The Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA), makes sure telecommunication manufacturers, who fabricate the baseband 3G/4G modems in phones, have remotely exploitable code built into the proprietary, closed source, hardware and software drivers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Apple warrant canary died
Since Apple's warrant canary has already died, we know that Apple has already gotten an NSL, so Apple's encryption is already backdoored.
Apple's announcement is a *misdirection* to make people *think* that they are safe, so they don't utilize encryption apps that actually work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Apple warrant canary died
Wow. That's confusing/misreading a bunch of stories.
1. The canary was about Section 215 Patriot Act orders, not NSLs.
2. It was overreported that it died, because the new report still says no bulk orders, which is what 215 would be about.
3. You can't backdoor encryption via a 215 order.
So, basically, no.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Apple warrant canary died
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Apple warrant canary died
Real-time communications over dedicated-disconnected-devices is possible with JackPair. It's a dedicated-disconnected-device that has two 3.5mm headphone jacks. Hence the name 'JackPair'.
One 3.5mm jack plugs into the headphones/mic plug on a smartphone. The other 3.5mm jack plugs into a regular headset with a microphone.
You speak into a regular headset that's plugged into one of Jackpair's ports. JackPair encrypts your voice, then outputs your encrypted voice to the smartphone's 3.5mm audio jack.
You are correct. A dedicated-disconnected-device is the only secure way to encrypt communications over untrusted hardware devices using closed-source software drivers. Such as smartphones.
https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2014/09/jackpair_encryp.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Apple warrant canary died
In this case they're complaining about a strength. So are you saying they're trying reverse psychology, in hopes of getting more people to rely on the encryption because they can easily bypass it? I don't think they're that clever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't see that anything has changed since then. Seems like the brainless monkeys that run this country are waving their genitals around and throwing their poop more than ever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
-James "QQ" Comey
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Quick question: Before smart phones how did those in law enforcement do their jobs? Because apparently these new fangled devices have been the bane of their professions...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Angry FBI?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You cant just spy on everyone. The tech world is not going to permit that.
Privacy is a human right enshrined in law, making a LEO's job more convenient is not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If they keep this up...
Just to super duper triple encrypt my sekrets.
And when they crack it, after years of quantum computer-grade hacking, it will be
..
..
empty.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
For Your Future Safety
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
...And Locks
Maybe all public servants should have a badge that allows full access to your home so we don't run into problems like this...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So no, Mr. LEO, I'm not trying to thwart you with my encrypted phone...that's just a side benefit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What's the alternative?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Onion nailed it again.
Oh wait.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Shredder?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/defense-agency-conducts-a-contest-on-reas sembling-shredded-documents/2011/12/02/gIQAmEsfpO_story.html
Note, that was 2011. I'm sure the systems are faster now. Remember, first you shred, then you burn, then you stir into water and mud, then you scatter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Shredder?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Shredder?
Try reassembling ashes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
All the buzzwords...
Is there even an article out there where they use ANY real examples instead of just the usual "top ten scariest words on google".
Is there any debate where the two sides actually discuss the technical pros and cons to such things as encryption and surveillance? because I don't think I ever see anything remotely like it hasn't been thought up by an average 5'th grader from the pro side.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is also a lie
This is a lie. Placing control of the keys in the hands of the user instead of Apple or Google is not making anyone above the law -- it only changes who gets the court order.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm being generous in assuming they must have some sort of mental defect to explain their statements, because calling them fucking liars is mean.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
pile of meh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Says the boss of the FBI? I'm baffled.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Comey#NSA_domestic_wiretapping
Although Comey was a Bush Administration lackey, Comey was nominated by the Obama Administration (allegedly a Democratic president nominating a Bush crony) because Comey "refused to certify" illegal NSA wiretapping while he was in the Bush Administration.
In CIA jargon, this is known as a "legend" (cover story).
Result: Yet another Bush crony nominated to Chief a major agency/bureau/cabinet post/etc. by Obama (can we call him "Molebama" yet?).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
will continue to use vulrable technology
Fck that
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hahaha
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
great analogy
While you and all your commentators want to rail on and on about "unwarranted surveillance," we still have NO--and I mean not a single ONE--example of "warrantless surveillance" leading to the prosecution of an American. Of course, any defendant with a good lawyer, and any moderately honest judge, would not let such a proceeding move forward, you can promote your radical right-wing Alex Jones views and get the script kiddies all scared.
Your analogy is wrong, plain and simple. Comey nowhere even IMPLIES--not even close--that citizens have no right to privacy and must expose themselves to constant review by law enforcement--ie, must not have "walls" to their houses. His sane, clear, message is that Apple and Google are creating mechanisms that put citizens beyond the reach of 100% legal, NECESSARY, WARRANTED law enforcement.
So what Comey is saying is, "the law says you can keep your walls and your house locked, but if the Court issues a warrant, we are going to come in." You are saying, "a warrant doesn't entitle you to search my premises." Well, yes it does, even in the Constitution, even in the Bill of Rights, and if you deny that, you absolutely are saying as Comey says, that you are "above the law."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: great analogy
Why is this an important point? First, most of the problems with surveillance have nothing to do with prosecution. Second, thanks to parallel construction, we literally have no way to know if there were any as a result.
"Apple and Google are creating mechanisms that put citizens beyond the reach of 100% legal, NECESSARY, WARRANTED law enforcement."
This is a straight up lie. It does no such thing. All it does is change who gets the warrant. Instead of Apple or Google, it has to be the user of the device. This brings about the state that things should have been in in the first place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: great analogy
What's going to happen when this does happen to someone? You going to scream that the Constitution allows that too?
What a cunt you are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: great analogy
If you think Techdirt is anti-constitution, you have no idea what you're talking about. If that's not what you're saying then I have no idea what you're talking about. :-)
Comey nowhere even IMPLIES--not even close--that citizens have no right to privacy and must expose themselves to constant review by law enforcement--ie, must not have "walls" to their houses.
What Comey is saying is that this technology is bad because it makes law enforcement's job harder. But there are lots of things - including walls - that make law enforcement's job harder that are perfectly acceptable. Therefore, that argument is insufficient to demonstrate that we should ban such things.
You are saying, "a warrant doesn't entitle you to search my premises."
No, he's saying "just because it makes your job harder doesn't mean it should be illegal".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]