Top FBI Official Says Tech Companies Need To 'Prevent Encryption Above All Else'
from the where-do-they-find-these-people? dept
Usually, when we see clueless government lackeys discussing the need to backdoor encryption, they at least admit upfront that they think encryption is important in protecting private information. Even that nutty rambling speech by Homeland Security Appropriations chair Rep. John Carter recognized that there were important reasons to use encryption to protect privacy. And FBI boss James Comey usually does some hand waving to that effect as well. But apparently he forgot to tell one of his deputies.While testifying before Congress, Michael Steinbach, assistant director in the FBI's Counterterrorism Division, just went to the levels of pure insanity, in arguing that above all else companies should work to prevent encryption. This was during a ridiculous grandstanding hearing held by the House Homeland Security Committee entitled "Terrorism Gone Viral", and Steinbach didn't waste the opportunity to make a ridiculously viral comment of his own:
So that’s the challenge: working with those companies to build technological solutions to prevent encryption above all else.Above all else? Is he crazy? At least his written testimony isn't quite as crazy, but still has a bunch of fear-mongering about "going dark."
Unfortunately, changing forms of internet communication are quickly outpacing laws and technology designed to allow for the lawful intercept of communication content. This real and growing gap the FBI refers to as “Going Dark” is the source of continuing focus for the FBI, it must be urgently addressed as the risks associated with “Going Dark” are grave both in traditional criminal matters as well as in national security matters.He also seemed positively freaked out that some social networks actually recognize that protecting their users privacy is a good thing:
"There are 200-plus social media companies. Some of these companies build their business model around end-to-end encryption," said Michael Steinbach, head of the FBI's counterterrorism division. "There is no ability currently for us to see that" communication, he said.While the head of the committee, Rep. Michael McCaul played along with this insanity, arguing about how these so called "dark spaces" are a "tremendous threat to the homeland" at least Rep. Ted Lieu -- the same Rep. who recently called out the push to backdoor encryption as "technologically stupid" -- has some more thoughts on the FUD and grandstanding by McCaul and Steinbach. As he told the Intercept:
"We're past going dark in certain instances. We are dark," he added.
“When they talk about dark places, ooooh it sounds really scary,” Lieu said. “But you have a dark place in your home you can talk, you can meet in a park –- there are a zillion dark places the FBI will never get to and they shouldn’t because we don’t want to be monitored in our home.” .....More Lieu, less McCaul and Steinbach, please.
“The notion that encryption is somehow different than other forms of destroying and hiding things is simply not true,” Lieu told The Intercept. “Forty years ago, you could make the statement that paper shredders are one of the most damaging things to national security because they destroy documents that law enforcement might want to see.”
The thing is, as we've noted before, what's equally as disturbing as the ignorant statements from folks like Steinbach is that now, security researchers and tech companies are going to have to waste tons of time and resources explaining why all of this is not just "technically stupid" but actively makes all of us less safe. And they need to do that, rather than building stronger encryption, which is what we really need.
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: encryption, fbi, james comey, michael mccaul, michael steinbach, privacy, security, ted lieu
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I do not so sure that it actually makes their job easier because, they Hoover up as much information as they can and then try to make sense of it. Perhaps if the Internet and phones were heavily encrypted they would actually focus of the criminals, and that would make their job easier.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If you mean "actually stopping terrorists", then sweeping up everything makes their job harder (e.g. the clear red flags about the Fort Hood shooter, the Boston Marathon bombers, the Garland shooters, etc got lost in the information overload).
If you mean "collecting a paycheck until you can collect a pension", well, then, yeah, being able to sit at a computer instead of wearing out shoe leather makes their job easier.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's the proverbial "here's the cadillac option, here's the ford focus option, and here's the yugo option that you'd present as project options to your boss."
This is (depending on your perspective) either the Yugo or the Cadillac option. He doesn't expect to get it, probably doesn't actually want it, and you can be certain he knows he's coming off as sounding unreasonable/irrational.
But it's going to make the "middle ground" option - when finally presented - sound oh-so-much better to the powers that be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Next argument
To which the FBI would no doubt say "Wow good point. We better get those banned too."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Next argument
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Next argument
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Next argument
Where I work, everything gets burnt after being shredded. We don't have burn bags as such, but instead we hire a company to take care of the disposal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Next argument
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Next argument
That is a chink in your armor that the spy agencies can use.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Next argument
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Next argument
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Next argument
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Next argument
I don't know if "most" fits there, but even if it does, it still remains true that most industrial espionage is not performed by the government. Most governmental industrial spying is also against foreign companies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Next argument
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TBF
To be fair, there's a huge difference between this and encryption; the 'zillion dark places' can be monitored with a warrant. All the warrants in the world can't get them past encryption.
Don't get me wrong, I think they just need to suck it up, but at least I understand why encryption freaks them out more than clandestine meetings in the dog park, amongst the hooded figures.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: TBF
Nonsense. Keyloggers and other bypass methods are well-known technologies. Of course, they need to be installed one device at a time, which is a bug for the Feds (who want to spy on everybody) but a feature for us (who want the Feds to obey the law).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: TBF
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't get it
Quoting Wikipedia: In cryptography, encryption is the process of encoding messages or information in such a way that only authorized parties can read it.
You don't need computers to do it. All you need is an agreement between the parties wanting to communicate with each other privately. They could agree to use a book as key and send each other just pairs of numbers, the first indicating a specific page, the second the place of a word on that page. Without knowing the book there is no way (at least that I know of) to decrypt such a message.
So, what is all the fuzz about?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I don't get it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
don't forget the chinese
they all need access too.........
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
For the FBI to justify their jobs of course......
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: For the FBI to justify their jobs of course......
I like to think of the OPM data breach as a small way the US gov't is walking the talk.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: For the FBI to justify their jobs of course......
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: For the FBI to justify their jobs of course......
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pssst
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Their lips are flapping.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Uhh...yeah, I think they already are being monitored in our homes through our PCs, TVs, smartphones and soon through all the "Internet of Things" devices.
Lieu has been great so far, but it's interesting to see that even someone like him can't really understand that we're already passed that point and the situation is MUCH WORSE than he is imagining. If even he can't see that, what can we expect from the technologically clueless politicians?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
These morons are going to screw up and it's going to be 100% their fault, but even then they'll say:
"IF WE ONLY HAD MORE POWERS WE WOULD'VE DEFINITELY STOPPED THIS ATTACK!!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
they need to take a minute to consider the alternative
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: they need to take a minute to consider the alternative
Arguing against [insert item] is arguing for making us all easier targets; to oppose [insert item] is to oppose security (or rights) of the people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wow
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Never mind shredders
We must ban matches, apparently if you burn a letter no-one can read it afterwards.
Oh and foreign languages, many people don't even speak God's good English how can we be expected to understand that?
Oh and whispering!
For pity's sake when will they ban whispering, we must think of the children ...
sounds of very small brain exploding ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
When they outlaw encryption, only outlaws will have encryption
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: When they outlaw encryption, only outlaws will have encryption
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: When they outlaw encryption, only outlaws will have encryption
At that point, you don't even have to worry about the nature of the presumed illegal activity the crypto-user might have been planning.
And in a networking environment where you can hoover up nearly all network traffic, people using crypto stick out like sore thumbs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: When they outlaw encryption, only outlaws will have encryption
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: When they outlaw encryption, only outlaws will have encryption
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: When they outlaw encryption, only outlaws will have encryption
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What's really missing here is effective oversight.
These agencies waste a fortune on people like this, but with effective oversight scaring them into actually doing their jobs as is expected of them, they'd be able to do multiple times better than they are now, and with far less. Instead, encouraging lazy minded and ignorant whiners like this, all that money just pours through the cracks in the floor.
All big gov't agencies learn this truth eventually. Throw a fortune at them and they'll find a way to waste it and come back whining they need more. Effective oversight is the only solution.
Oh, and fire the people who hired him and his immediate superior too. They're apparently just as lazy or incompetent, or both. None of them are earning their continued employment and blue ribbon salaries.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
encrytion?
s igh
br3n
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Burn bags, matches, and fire...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Burn bags, matches, and fire...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Above All Else"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nomenclature Issues.
Nonsense! Mike, turn that frown upside-down -- just announce and enforce a new mandatory business encryption standard. That solves all issues: mandatory encryption AND an automatic embedded security key that only the good guys* can use.
Double ROT-13 for consumers! High security issues? Use twice-as-hard quadruple ROT-13.
*BAD guys will be shown only the highly encrypted contents so absolutely no issues here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
All the security breaches lately say we need encryption more than ever
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why?
Should citizens be denied that same protection?
Why?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Why?": A: To protect itself and its citizens from the Very Bad People(tm) who wish to do Very Bad Things(tm).
"Should citizens be denied that same protection?": A: Yes.
"Why?": To allow the government to properly protect itself and its citizens from the Very Bad People(tm) who wish to do Very Bad Things(tm).
From a certain perspective, that logic makes a lot of sense. From most other perspectives, not so much. But when your job mandate is to make sure that "never again will there be a (9/11, world trade center, boston marathon bombing, etc)", it must get pretty easy after a while to accomplish the necessary mental gymnastics. It's the same pressure that eventually allows a person to turn everyone who disagrees with their methods into terrorist sympathizers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes...Yes
Sorry but statements like this just bring the worst out of me
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
encryption vs implementation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Will The Terrorists Please Stand Up
The terrorists can be found at 1600 Pennsylvania Washington DC across town at Capitol Hill and across the Potomac in Arlington Virgina.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The classic example of meglomaniac!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Going dark".
It's a good read summing up Snowden's legacy (so far). I wonder why the administration is ignoring experts they themselves hired to inform themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Going dark".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]