James Comey Again Demands Tech Companies Do As He Says And Grant The FBI Complete Access To Whatever It Wants
from the please-please-please-let-me-get-what-I-want dept
FBI director James Comey -- (again) citing no legal authority or precedent -- is demanding Google and Apple hand over the keys to their default phone encryption.
The director of the FBI on Monday doubled down on demands that Silicon Valley giants cooperate in the course of criminal investigations, saying that tech companies such as Apple and Google have to unlock cellphones, if authorities request it.And what has all this "demanding" and "doubling down" netted Comey? Nothing really. He still needs a compliant legislative body to oblige his fantasies of subservient tech companies opening wide for fat-fingered g-men.
Comey's latest attempt to sell the government's plan to exchange fear for all-access mobile phone passes came at a counterterrorism conference hosted by Fordham University. And, once again, Comey followed up his baseless demands with a whole lot of nothing.
Comey didn't specify what he wants Apple and Google to do but said that to find a solution requires an "honest debate."There's nothing honest about Comey's approach and walking around claiming that phone encryption will lead to new highs in terrorist attacks and pedophilia is only part of the dishonesty. Comey claims he doesn't want to "tell people what to do," apparently completely unaware that throwing around the weight of his agency and position and demanding phone makers play by his rules is the very definition of "telling people what to do."
"I don't want to tell people what to do," he said. "But I want to try to foster a national conversation about this."
"There has to be some solution that will allow us with lawful authority to be able to have the company unlock the device," he added.
Unfortunately for Comey, throwing around this weight just isn't enough anymore. No one in the tech world is going to be cowed into obeisance. Not anymore. Now, everyone wants to stick it to The Man, even many of those that worked in close proximity with government agencies over the past several years. Why? Because the nation's intelligence and investigative agencies are always hungry. They always want more.
The "solution" Comey's looking for runs through Congress. Historically, legislators have almost always come down on the side of law enforcement. The twin specters of terrorism and child molestation have resulted in plenty of government expansion and law enforcement leeway over the years. But maybe even the legislators are beginning to realize that this is something that can never be satiated. You can give and give and give and the same people will return over and over again, asking for just a little more. The government is -- and has been for years -- a mixture of junkies and their enablers.
Maybe we're at the point that a certain number of enablers have become sick of the constant need. Maybe they'll cut Comey and his ilk off and put up with the keening, inarticulate sounds of their withdrawal. Or maybe they'll meet them out back and slip them a fix when they think no one's looking. As I've said before, the voices out front are claiming the FBI will find no assistance here. It's the large number of those who've offered no opinion we need to keep an eye on. Law enforcement's emotional blackmail has worked for years. It may have recently lost its edge, but it's still too powerful to count out completely.
"In one way or another, our entire lives — our social lives, our work lives — reside online and on these devices," Comey said. "And that's a great thing. But that's also where the bad guys are."Yeah. As in "real life" itself. I guess we should expect him to ask for "golden key" access to every front door in America. As long as he's transparent about it, what's there to be concerned about? Comey just wants to keep America safe. Who are we to deny complete access to our "entire lives?"
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: back doors, encryption, fbi, front door, james comey, mobile encryption
Companies: apple, google
Reader Comments
The First Word
“This doesn't sound like a discussion to me. This sounds like you have a solution and are going to piss and moan until the nation accepts it. This sounds more like a 2 year old throwing a tantrum than a "national conversation"
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
The bad guys are everywhere most people are. The friendly neighbor can be a bank robber (true story from a close friend, we were shocked). Shall we give our door keys to the FBI just in case? I challenge him and any other of those morons to propose this. And eat each gram of crap from the ensuing shitstorm. Because if it works online it must work offline, no?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
yep
he is right. and they work at the FBI.
my resentment for *law enforcement* is reaching soviet union enforcer levels.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: yep
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
they are law enforcement anymore
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What he's achieved
I disagree. I think Comey has achieved something truly remarkable: he has succeeded in making himself look like a complete loon rather than simply the authoritarian thug that we have come to expect from FBI directors.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
They are pushing new encryption standards so that literally ONLY the owner of the phone can decrypt said phone.
And as people who have been used to being crushed under mountain of data...that scares them...and to that I say..."Good"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: FBI Demands companies do as he says
Real warrants, from a real court, signed by a real judge. Not some super secret FISA court and their rubber stamp from a clerk. Being secret, FISA isn't a real court, anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword. It both emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind. And when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and the mind has closed, the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizenry. Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and blinded by patriotism, will offer up all of their rights unto the leader and gladly so. How do I know? For this is what I have done. And I am Caesar."
--- Julius Caesar
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This calls for a new bill
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We had a national conversation about it. It went like this:
American People: Hey FBI, NSA, HomeSec...why are you gathering up every telephone conversation made in the US?
American Government: I cannot say if we are, but if it were the case, the reasons would be classified.
AP: Ok, well, we have some documents that say you are doing it.
AG: Well, again, I cannot confirm or deny anything because that would make you less safe.
AP: Ok, well then we are going to demand our tech providers make our information more secure.
AG: For your own safety, we are going to need the keys.
AP: Umm...go f*** yourselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Honey, could you open the door? I locked myself out again."
Comey is one incredible piece of work. He makes Sarah Palin look like a Rhodes scholar.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This doesn't sound like a discussion to me. This sounds like you have a solution and are going to piss and moan until the nation accepts it. This sounds more like a 2 year old throwing a tantrum than a "national conversation"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If we're going to have a national conversation, it needs to be about why the FBI doesn't want to use warrants. We could talk about why the FBI wants to read people's mail without probable cause. We could talk about why the FBI doesn't want warrant-less spying included in courtroom evidence, and would prefer to lie about their sources. We could even talk about how warrants are a matter of public record, and provide needed transparency into what the FBI is doing.
But Comey doesn't want to have that conversation, and that's why he's pissing and moaning. An actual discussion is the last thing he wants.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
With encrypted storage on the phone, the warrant will only work if their is a backdoor in the encryption system, or the company has by some means acquired or manages the users key. If the encryption is done properly, with the key under user control only, the phone company will not be able access the phones contents.
Done properly, it means that the phone cannot be decrypted without the owners knowledge, including any cloning by TSA, or police when they stop and search someone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Not true.
The warrant is issued to the owner of the device (the user who has the key). If they don't comply, they go to jail for contempt until they do.
I'm not seeing the problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I was taking the conversation in the larger context of what Comey has been saying. The argument Comey has been making is that if the companies can't do this, that means that law enforcement can't possibly get access to the phone whether or not they have a warrant.
That's the straight-up lie.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sure it's a conspiracy theory, but is it any more nuts than the Tuskegee syphilis experiment, or the CIA funding an illegal war in central America with money earned from the trafficking of drugs from south America to the US. During this same time, the US Government was bombarding the media with their anti-drug "just say no" campaign. (the results put Manuel Noreiga in prison, and gave his partner Col Olivier North, who met with him, a radio show), or as previously mentioned, the RSA giving them easier access.
Knowing those things happened in the past, and knowing what the FBI likes to do when it acts as an intelligence agency (Cointelpro), how likely is it that they don't already have the "golden keys" and so now they just want to make sure everyone uses the services they have access too?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Conspiracy theory on encryption
It's possible that there are people who currently avoid putting anything private on a smartphone who might start to do so if they were taken in by the conspiracy you posit, but my guess is that most of the people who avoid it now are suspicious enough that they won't start just because a closed system claims to be more secure than it once was.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The encrypted email contained a cat's butt with the words "kiss it". I bet the recipient was wondering why they got an email they couldn't decrypt but I hope the people in Government could see it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
James Comey - You First.
No more private moments at home, no secret meetings, nothing.
If you see it, we see it. If you hear it, we hear it.
That is what you are asking for.
That is invasion of privacy.
That is why WE choose to encrypt devices that hold information about our PRIVATE lives.
You have proven that you are incapable of following the law.
You are a TRAITOR to our country.
You have committed acts of TREASON by violating the constitution.
You should have been arrested a long time ago to stand trial for treason.
We'll work on getting the PotUS, the heads of the CIA/NSA/and other alphabet organizations to join you in your cell as soon as possible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: James Comey - You First.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"if you don't give us what we want bad things are going to happen to you"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That's a pretty poor analogy since battering rams exist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
We will attach wireless fax machine scanners to the head units of your paper shredders so that we get copies of all the document's you shred.
Because. you could be shredding child-porn pictures..
But we'll keep everything you shred just in case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Battering rams are obvious
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Battering rams are obvious
A skilled lockpicker (I mean locksmith) doesn't need a key; it just makes their job easier. And don't kid yourself: the government has a few of them on the payroll.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Battering rams are obvious
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Battering Rams
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Battering Rams
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Battering Rams
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
simple answer
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Because terrorism means you have no rights if those in charge decide they do not want you to have any rights
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Calling NSA's Bluff(dale)
They wanted more hay in their haystack, so here it is.
To add insult to injury, these random bits don't compress at all, so Bluffdale will run out of space even faster.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sounds pretty crazy doesn't it. That's because it is crazy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
People should be able to lock or encrypt
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
He isn't asking for that because he doesn't need it. There aren't many doors in America that can stand up to an MRAP, hell the majority can't stand up to a Swat boot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
(This is complete sarcasm for you government spooks listening out there - I would never honestly consider a career in law enforcement...)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Has this guy FINALLY managed to exhaust the vast porn content of the internet and now has to start furiously fapping to peoples random iphone pics?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Time to gut the "3rd Party Doctrine"
I should be able to trust my phone, my pacemaker, my coclear implants, my retinal implants, etc., not to violate my 1st, 3rd, 4th & 5th Amendment rights.
Cory Doctorow has talked about this already, but it's now time to fix this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Time to gut the "3rd Party Doctrine"
I feel it's reasonable to have the expectation that, yes, my phone and internet service providers could potentially snoop in the stuff that I trust them with, but not have them disclose it to anyone without a very specific warrant directed at me and my information based on real criminal acts I'm legitimately suspected of committing.
The government thinks no one has a reasonable expectation of privacy (except for the government) because they snoop through everyone's stuff without a warrant. Their arguments are self-supporting.
"You can't expect privacy because I like to snoop through your stuff, therefore your expectations of privacy are unreasonable."
To put it another way, I hand a letter to the postal service and expect them to deliver it to the intended recipient without opening it or reading it. Why is that expectation of privacy any less reasonable than typing a letter up in a webmail app and hitting send?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Time to gut the "3rd Party Doctrine"
There is an underlying aspect to the third party doctrine that makes sense. If I give my data to someone else, then (in the absence of a legal agreement otherwise) that someone else can do anything they like with it including give it to the cops with or without a warrant.
Where I think the whole notion has been perverted is with the concept of "reasonable expectation of privacy". That is a flawed standard from the start, and is a much larger problem than the specific incarnation in the third party doctrine.
For example, in what sane world is there no reasonable expectation of privacy with third parties even when there is an explicit agreement that the third party will maintain your privacy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A little less sarcasm and hyperbole please
"fat-fingered G-men"
"The government is -- and has been for years -- a mixture of junkies and their enablers."
"Maybe they'll cut Comey and his ilk off and put up with the keening, inarticulate sounds of their withdrawal."
Doesn't matter that there is a strong element of truth in here. The writing is just plain nasty, and therefore hard to take seriously.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A little less sarcasm and hyperbole please
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A little less sarcasm and hyperbole please
The velvet glove is well and truly off. The time for half measures is over.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A little less sarcasm and hyperbole please
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How are the FBI/NSA/etc going to make the case that they are the one's fighting to "protect and defend" the constitution?
Or is that not the very definition of defending the county?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A Simple Solution
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A Simple Solution
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A Simple Solution
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anyone who attacks the very foundation and social fabric of our country, will be considered an enemy of the State in my book.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Apple Encryption
.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Let's just kill humanity because of the "bad guys".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Facebook encryption
[ link to this | view in chronology ]