Having Lost The Debate On Backdooring Encryption, Intelligence Community Plans To Wait Until Next Terrorist Attack
from the this-is-ridiculous dept
We already wrote about the Obama administration considering its options on how to handle the whole "going dark" debate concerning backdooring encryption. The key point in all of that is that there is no chance in hell that backdoors will be mandated by law. The administration recgonizes that's a lost cause. However, within the Washington Post's article that revealed this, there was also a somewhat disturbing argument from the losing side of this battle. The intelligence community seems to be gleefully awaiting the next terrorist event, knowing that it can then reintroduce its push for backdoors:Although “the legislative environment is very hostile today,” the intelligence community’s top lawyer, Robert S. Litt, said to colleagues in an August e-mail, which was obtained by The Post, “it could turn in the event of a terrorist attack or criminal event where strong encryption can be shown to have hindered law enforcement.”In other words, Litt admits that his side has lost this battle, but he doesn't want the administration to come out totally against legislation, because, you know, if there's an attack, then maybe the idiots in the public will finally accept the intelligence community shoving backdoors down their throat. After all, such a plan worked out pretty well with the PATRIOT Act, which took a bunch of bad and rejected ideas and rushed them into law. In fact, it's almost amazing that the law enforcement community didn't get backdooring encryption into the PATRIOT Act back in 2001 in the first place...
There is value, he said, in “keeping our options open for such a situation.”
Either way, given this, it really looks like Litt is hoping for another attack to get through, just so he can better spy on people. Why are these people in positions of power again?
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: backdoors, encryption, going dark, mandates, nsa, robert litt, surveillance, white house
Reader Comments
The First Word
“Ambition. They are in power because they want the power.
Most people don't want power because it comes with responsibility... supposedly.
These people want the power because they know they can waive of the responsibilities.
That reminds me of a philosopher who said that power should only be granted to those who don't want it.
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
The next terrorist attack...
I keep hearing about all the terrorist plots being foiled by the FBI, in which it turns out the FBI thought up, planned, recruited/coerced the actors, supplied them and then "foiled" the attempt through investigative means.
Would this possibly mean that they may plan some attacks using encrypted communication with the actors, that they then are "unable to prevent" because of "encryption", just to further their Totalitarian/Orwellian agenda?
I swear, I'm only this cynical when it comes to the Government/Politicians. They, long ago, abandoned the purpose of "Serving the People", in favor of serving themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The next terrorist attack...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The next terrorist attack...
Doesn't the FBI already have plenty of experience manufacturing terrorist plots?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The next terrorist attack...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The next terrorist attack...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The next terrorist attack...
It turns out, you don't need to run false flag missions. You just need to wait a few months for a quasi-real one you can exaggerate.
Easier to wait for some real baddies to do some bad than to stage it - and bear the additional burden of a false flag operation, and a complicated cover-up.
Look at it this way: It's CYA. "nobody ever got fired for buying IBM". And nobody ever got fired for exaggerating up some minor threat. But people often get burned/jailed/impeached for foul play (ex: Nixon, Ken Lay, McCarthy, Madoff). Why would the spooks take the chance of repercussions when they can just play the safe bets, and still win.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My oxymoron alert just broke.
They don't need to wait. So far, they're batting a staggering "0%" in the war on terror, not including the cases they make up themselves to dupe everyone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/q-a-the-fbi-s-role-in-manufacturing-terrorism-1.1337748
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
self fufilling prophecy stuff
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Novel Idea
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Novel Idea
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Novel Idea
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Novel Idea
At very least they won't be able to prove that it wasn't a LIHOP situation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
crap crap crap
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Novel Idea
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Novel Idea
Hmmm...
Hayden (NSA) & Tenet (CIA) & Mueller (FBI) all kept their jobs, even after they screwed up with 9/11. Next idea?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Hayden_%28general%29
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_ Tenet
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Mueller
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ambition. They are in power because they want the power.
Most people don't want power because it comes with responsibility... supposedly.
These people want the power because they know they can waive of the responsibilities.
That reminds me of a philosopher who said that power should only be granted to those who don't want it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No matter how badly they do, there are no responsiblities for the guys in the top. Even if they quite blatently run a company or organization into the ground they always seem to get a new high position job with huge benifits and a golden handshake that a family could live quite well of for the rest of their lives.
Responsibility is only effective if there is an incentive to be responsible.
For normal people it is usually enough to know that other people will suffer if you don't keep to your responsibilities, but the higher you go, the farther away you get from those you hurt until they are just ants that you stepped on without even noticing them.
I have a long worklife ahead of me, but I do not wish for a place of power if this is the price for it.
I am not religious, but this sentence seems to describe it very well: "To sell your soul"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The ones I talk about are the people with power we hear about. Not just major business CEO's, but police, FBI, CIA, NSA, big politicians. These guys don't have the incentive to think about their responsibilities beyond themselves. Just another golden payday at the end of any major incident they may cause. I have seen such high profile people go broke with several companies only to be able to borrow another million to start up again. Even when they are personally broke, they still drive around in luxary cars somehow.
I am getting a bit off topic though. In this case, it is the FBI and friends who wants to destroy our current technological infrastructure for power that NOONE should have. Most of us here know what chaos it would be and how utterly a failure it was to even suggest it in the first place, but does anyone get fired or even a stern talking to in public? It was such a rediculus and dangerous suggestion that anyone who ever was in favor of this deserves to get fired from public service of any kind, from a purely management perspective.
Think about the scale of it, if this had gone through. Only nukes would probably be able to measure up to that scale of global affect. No terrorist ever could.
These people have a big responsibility to live up to, but no incentive to do so, and as such they chose not to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Almost directly quoted the fictitious Gustavo Fring here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I've often said the same of the 2nd Amendment battle. I'm for moderate rights to bear arms, but why is it that most of the people who want to own firearms are precisely the people I would rather not own them?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A bit naive, Mike...
They are in positions of power so that they are not reduced to merely hoping for another attack. They got all the materials they need, and all the legal and clandestine tools they need to keep it under wraps.
Why do you think you only hear of pathetic would-be terrorists ending up before court? They keep the good ones operational instead.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A bit naive, Mike...
Because Real Terrorists(TM) have long ago declared "mission accomplished." The police and courts are battling domestic insurgents, the military is off in Syria and Ukraine doing whatever they please not to mention droning anything they please, weapons mfgrs are continuing to get rich, and the DEA has its never ending War On Drugs going at full blast with hardly anyone questioning it, so what would Real Terrorists accomplish by attacking? Not a lot more than is already going on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: A bit naive, Mike...
President :"OMG, NDAA!"
Eugenics start en masse. Basically, the only way your country can be saved is by soldiers refusing to attack the citizens and that piece of paper they swore oath to. I'd say it's 50-50 by now, these endless wars and the soldiers who remain in are growingly going mad themselves so.
gg
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This would be a more accurate title, I think.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
...Or one they planned and carried out themselves?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I guess our intelligence community fought monsters so long they themselves became monsters, because I see very little difference in their operation. Seems best to retire the lot and start fresh if that's the case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
NSA is going to hold a bill-raising?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hmmm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Or where law enforcement is intentionally lax so that such an event is more likely to happen and then law enforcement can claim that more spying is needed.
I think the point is that their job is to stop criminals without invading our privacy. That they almost look forward to an attack that they can use as the poster child for a self serving or alternate agenda is almost a conflict of interest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: That they almost look forward to an attack...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Accountability
Hellfire colonics are primed and ready.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tin-Foil
It explains all of the crazy things they do and say.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pliably Supine True Believers
These people do not need an actual terrorist attack in order to have their way. These people simply need to make unsubstantiated claims of an impending attack based upon the claim of increased "chatter" between encrypted terrorist communications and then hide behind the veil of national security when queried for details.
These people are in positions of power because they are pliably supine heel-clicking true believers who salute smartly and march off unquestioningly to the drum beat of tyranny when ordered to do so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It wouldn't matter if the legislation went through anyway.
Legislating a required backdoor would only damage the regular citizens, companies, corporations within the United States leaving them open to cyber attacks thousands of times a day.
By that line of thought, any attempt to legislate backdoors into encryption and other security products would be akin to mass vandalism to every device created or used within the United States. This would leave both the Legislative and Executive branches of the government open to Ricoh act charges because of the massive damage to our nations infrastructure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It wouldn't matter if the legislation went through anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Strong crypto from abroad.
That way the public would not only go dark but they wouldn't be able to determine who went dark or how.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So...that's a punt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Where their entire existance supposedly, is based upon their being bad guys to fight, is it a stretch to believe when their are no more bad guys, that they wont just define some more
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rand Paul was right
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
USA PATRIOT Act
I'm sure they would have if they had thought of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It not a fucking nice thing to say about someone is it Mr fjcking government, so stop treating every fucking one of us as one
And until we ACTUALLY start employeeing PEACE AMBASADORS, people designated to find alternative approaches to violence, then fuck off with your self created enemies
Stop actively interferring and upsetting foreign nations aswell as your own constituants, a good and HUGE fucking step for one......one that you consistantly and AROGANTLY ignore every single fucking time
Self appointed, wanabe superior cast, manipulative, secretive, no morals, authorative, no boundaries, self entitled to lives/laws and trust, arrogance disguised as confidence, liers, self entitled interfering busy bodies.....and by no means less ARMED
Yeah, sure, whyyyy should i be worried, or royally pissed off that its getting worse not better
Godammit man, do they not realise that they create their very own opposition, or are they so arrogant to believe that they are entitled to other peoples lives
Why do we bother, the writings on the wall, these arrogant pricks will get what they want, 1:this will come, and 2:it will be abused......2 crimes
Government the war on terrorist competition.......fcking bastards.......godammit
Im sorry guys and gals, calmer minds do prevail given time, im once left with the decision to post this or self censor
Nope, looks like ive still got more.....(godamit)
Kings, queens, presidents, primeministers, politicians, monarchies, governments, religious institutions
These things are the causes of global instability
A government is not a bad idea to me, one that is mandated only to keeping the peace(REACTIONARY ONLY) and DEFENDING the land from foreign ARMIES should one come, however one that has no boundaries is most assuredly a shit waiting to hit the fan
Sheep go bahhh bahhhh
I say, go fuck yourselves
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
i'm wondering now if real flesh-and-blood terrorists would buddy up with our govt to blow some people here to kingdom come. i guess the question would be: do any terrorists want our govt to shred our constitution? we certainly are less america already than we've probably ever been. maybe they'd go for that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Real flesh and blood terrorists
I bet that those who have issues with massacring civilians will get over it if the price is right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And should there be some things that need doing that are simply too heinous even for the US military's nastiest murder squads to handle, there is always the corporate owned ex-military mercenary squads they used in Afghanistan and Louisiana to kill and torture civilians, waiting in the wings.
Why trust to foreigners, that which can be better dealt with by your own people?
---
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
https://theintercept.com/2015/09/16/top-intel-lawyer-pushing-anti-encryption-legislation-say s-terror-attack-help/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Making everyone less safe helps no one but the criminals and/or criminally minded, of which the badge-toting types are only a small percentage.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Currently, the only people that actually count, are those who are members of the Ownership Society - the mega-rich.
Once you understand that the US public is the Adversary and that the Ownership Society is threatened only by the Adversary - drug dealers and terrorists are after all. members of the US public remember - you will begin to understand how eliminating encryption does indeed make "Everybody" safer. :)
---
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How much $$?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How much $$?
Which one was not "fomented by our own "security" services."?
I must have missed that one.
---
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: How much $$?
So they just leave the observers from other countries like me in a permanently anxious needing Valium to go through the night and day. I would have exploded if I was American by now I think (heart stuff, LEO's, nothing terrorist).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: How much $$?
============
As every Anti-Conspiracy Buff will tell you, conspiracies, such as 9/11, are impossible, simply because too many people would know about it and it would thus be impossible to keep them all quiet.
For some unknown reason, Anti-Conspiracy Buffs think that people who participate in a conspiracy, want to tell the world that they participated in a conspiracy.
Since that's just about the stupidest thing I've ever heard, I have to stand with the notion that conspiracies are easy to plan and pull off because people will do almost anything for money, and once involved in such a scheme, will never admit to anyone that they actually participated in something that netted them a ton of cash and probably caused the deaths of hundreds of people.
Doing so will lose them the cash and put them in jail, where they will likely be knifed to death within 24 hours, compliments of those they just squealed on.
So, in order to pull off another in the long string of "successful conspiracies" (Anti-Conspiracy Buffs believe there is no such thing), it takes a lot of planning and lot of time and money to insure that the people who "know" about it are also the kind of people that will take the money offered and stay quiet forever about what they know.
Sometimes that means getting certain people elected and certain people employed at sensitive posts - you know, the sort of things that the Good Old Boys Network has always been extremely good at pulling off.
Sometimes it means getting certain people killed - accidentally of course - in order to make a position vacant for the replacements you choose.
To the Anti-Conspiracy Buff, conspirators are four moustached men in dark suits who meet in a darkened warehouse in the dead of night, and plan their plots of conquest entirely without the aid of regular citizens who would do anything for money.
It would never occur to the Anti-Conspiracy Buff that a conspiracy is nothing more than a business venture, planned out in the exact same manner and in the exact same environment as would a corporate marketing scheme to sell shit as Shinola (an ancient name for brown shoe-polish).
It would also never occur to the anti-conspiracy buff that every single person involved in a conspiracy that would thus know about the conspiracy and be in a position to squeal on the others, would be effectively committing suicide, since they too were involved in the conspiracy and thus are also guilty of that crime.
And as for the notion that they might get protection from prosecution if they squeal, consider for a second how all the Whistleblowers who expose government conspiracy are actually treated.
Its quite easy to set up a fake terrorist act. Its just really damned expensive and necessitates gathering the right criminals together at the right time and insuring they are in the right places.
The little details and mistakes and screw-ups that inevitably occur, are easily taken care of through reverse information damage control, which the truth free press has become almost expert at these days.
I don't think you will have to wait too long for the next fake terror attack, cuz the Boys are getting desperate. Already their plans for a New American Century have been set back numerous times and they are getting long in the tooth and soon may be too old to enjoy Bimbos, Yachts and Cocaine.
And the press will carry the day easily this time too, as the Five Eyes Special Forces Battalion, commonly known as ISIS, will immediately claim the fame for it - guaranteed.
That was the reason they were created in the first place, just like when the CIA created El Quaida (sp?) for 9/11.
Once you know who the bad guys really are, its quite easy to see reality through the BS.
Sadly, most people prefer to believe that their billionaire citizens and elected officials and fellow Joe Six-packs, would never willfully fuck them over for power and money and they will fight tooth and nail to keep that faith from being punctured by facts or reality.....
...no matter how many fake terrorist attacks they might have to endure.
---
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
no, i mean the political types who would bray in triumph even if the whole operation was u.s. directed. that would be the classic way to goad unsuspecting americans into doing something spectacularly stupid.
i'm wondering if terrorists might see advantage for them in such an enterprise. usually if terrorists can get you to behave like them or some other non-typical and important ways, they have accomplished some of their chief goals.
of course, they would need to understand they would become fodder for our assassination machine as they'd be very dangerous to us. they'd know the truth and know the details to tell, so we'd be white-heat to get rid of them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Requim
Coming soon to a city near you - or maybe even to your city.
And you people were all wondering why the FBI was repeatedly practicing all those phony terrorist acts by conning internet morons into walking a fake bomb into a photo-op sting situation.
Well, now you know. Its just FBI boy-scouting behaviour.
Being prepared.
----
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Children
Piracy
Repeat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
TCP/IP
.. wat?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]