If The FBI Can't Stop All These Leaks About An Investigation, Why Would it Be Able To Keep Encryption Backdoor Secret?
from the bunch-of-leakers dept
In the last 10 days or so, James Comey sent two letters to Congress -- the first one notifying Congress of some new information in an "unrelated" investigation that may pertain to Hillary Clinton's emails. And then the one from yesterday admitting that there was nothing important in those emails. That was effectively all that Comey said officially. Yet, in between all of that a ton of information leaked from the FBI about the investigation. We learned what it pertained to (the Anthony Weiner investigation), heard estimates of the number of emails involved, heard that the FBI found them weeks ago but only told Comey right before he sent the letter, that the FBI didn't have a warrant to read the emails -- and then that it did, and that a whole bunch of people inside both the FBI and DOJ have opinions on both sides of this whole mess.Basically, the FBI (and the DOJ) were leaking information like it was the last chance they'd ever have to leak information and their lives depended on who could leak the most.
And, remember, this is the same damn agency that is so insistent on forcing tech companies to put backdoors into any encryption to make sure the FBI can get into anything it wants. Yet, they can't keep the basic details of an investigation secret? And then they expect everyone to just accept it when they say that we can trust them to keep backdoors secret and to only use them appropriately? That seems like a huge leap of faith for a government bureau that has done almost nothing to deserve that kind of support.
The next time (and it's coming...) the FBI starts talking about "Going Dark" and how it needs to break basic technology tools, perhaps stand up and remind people that this is an organization that can't keep its own secrets very well. Perhaps we shouldn't trust it with all of our secrets as well.
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, fbi, going dark, james comey, leaks
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Cue the WaPo editorial you mentioned Friday:
So, are you guys at TechDirt seriously trying to destroy democracy?
Also, a quote from a well-known figure from a long time ago:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Think of how Stingray cell site snoopers were for catching terrorists... and now they're in use by 13 federal agencies plus many state and local police agencies. They'll all demand the backdoor password.
That goes for the police agencies in other countries too. If Apple gives American police a back door, Britain, Germany, Saudi Arabia and all the rest will demand it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
It wont
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Wanting the FBI to keep leaking info is wrong for the right reasons. While supporting the FBI in keeping this quiet and out of the public eye is right for the wrong reason.
The system is so corrupted that this scandal will not get into the public's eye any other way. Though it causes risk to us all when the FBI decide to do this to someone else, for whatever reason.
I think I have to support the leaking, if only because I do not believe these criminals will be brought to justice under the system when they can pay off key people into ignoring their crimes.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Old Proverb Still Rules
How many employees does the Federal Bureau of Intrusion have?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Because... Unicorn!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
nuff said
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Silly Rabbit...
At least the FBI thinks so! They want those backdoors so they can plant evidence where ever they please. Right now they are just limited to "manufacturing" the evidence, but this way they can have a much easier time to planting evidence over time.
Juries are forced to become suckers because a Judge orders them to before the start of every trial.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
If the FBI does ever get such a backdoor, a public leak is actually of little concern compared to a mole. A public leak at least reveals the existence of the backdoor in question...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Endorsements must be public
Oh they can keep a backdoor secret, at least for a while, because they want to keep that secret.
They couldn't "keep" this investigation secret because it was their back-handed endorsement of Trump. Endorsements must be public.
Well, how do you publicize a secret you're supposed to be keeping? You leak like a sieve, naturally.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The FBI
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well, kind of. The Trump Foundation got in trouble for making a political contribution; as far as whether that contribution was intended to stop an investigation of Trump University, that hasn't been decided in the courts yet. (I certainly think it was, but it's not really accurate to say they've "gotten in trouble" for it.)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
The hallmark of a conspiracy theorist is that he sees lack of evidence as evidence of a coverup.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lack of consequences lead to escalation of criminal action.
To me, they are stating openly and blatantly, that should they some day find it expeditious, profitable, or simply want to cover their own or friends' crooked asses, they WILL expose or use the information they have collected about anyone and anything, in a self serving manner, regardless of the consequences to those involved.
They are, without a doubt, willing and eager to use the private information of Americans, for personal gain, insurance against criminal prosecution and to generally prevent the public from making informed decisions by selectively releasing specific data to sway public opinion in the direction the federal administration deems acceptable.
The placement of back-doors in telephones and other electronic communications equipment, will only increase this propensity by offering an additional, invisible means to gather secret information on Americans.
If true American Justice was to be served, the entire USG would be looking for a new job tomorrow, (in a different country) and the members and administrators of its tri-letter spy agencies would be replacing marijuana smokers in US prisons.
But, because of the way the fascists have reworked US laws, not only will none of the above be prosecuted for their crimes, but most will be promoted and praised for their efforts against "the Adversary" and the process itself, will escalate without pause.
Heil Amerika!
---
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Lack of consequences lead to escalation of criminal action.
They already leak or outright publish anything they find "expiditious, profitable, or ass-covering." Been doing that for years. As well as clamming up when publicity would not be "expiditious, profitable, or ass-covering."
They're completely self-serving in that respect.
So now ask yourself: what did they expect to gain with their back-handed endorsement of Trump? Because I guarantee: they expected to gain something.
[ link to this | view in thread ]