Comey Can't Say How Often Encryption Thwarts Investigations, But Probably A Lot
from the never-let-facts-get-in-the-way-of-the-rhetoric dept
FBI Director James Comey believes encryption is perhaps the biggest threat to public safety yet. So big, in fact, that he can only engage in hyperbole about it. There's been very little done to quantify the problem, even by the agency that seems to fear it most.
In 2015, Comey told senators that a "vast majority" of devices seized by US law enforcement "may no longer be accessible" due to encryption. Comey has a very strange definition of "vast majority," as Marcy Wheeler points out.
In a speech at the end of August, Jim Comey claimed that the FBI had been unable to open 650 of the 5,000 devices it got in its forensics centers.
"We believe in the FBI that we need a conversation. If at the end of the day the American people say, “You know what, we’re okay with that portion of the room being dark. We’re okay with”—to use one example—“the FBI, in the first 10 months of this year, getting 5,000 devices from state and local law enforcement and asked for assistance in opening them, and in 650 of those devices being unable to open those devices.” That’s criminals not caught, that’s evidence not found, that’s sentences that are far, far shorter for pedophiles and others because judges can’t see the true scope of their activity."
That left the impression that encryption thwarted the FBI in 13% of all cases.
But it's not even 13%. Comey has given the impression that the agency has hard numbers on encryption, but there's still nothing to work with. The 13% percent presented by Comey includes all inaccessible phones -- a number that includes physically-damaged phones and phones where data had been deleted.
So the "problem" is far less of a problem than has been presented. While it's true that the number of encrypted devices encountered will rise with the continued implementation of encryption-by-default, the "darkness" predicted by Comey and others (like Manhattan DA Cy Vance) is still nothing more than a rhetorical tactic.
But nothing's going to move ahead legislatively if the FBI can't demonstrate necessity. And 13% isn't going to cut it, even if that number is inflated. James Comey is basically acting as an anti-encryption lobbyist, as Wheeler points out:
So unless the FBI, after I asked in early September, went back and recalculated their quarterly numbers (I’ve got a question in to clarify this point), then the FBI is presenting a false claim about encryption.
This is what's being used willingly by Senators Burr, Feinstein, and others to push anti-encryption legislation forward: overstated fears and massaged numbers. Comey wants the private sector to "nerd harder" and bend math to his will, ignoring the realities and repercussions of doing so. This fits in perfectly with his nonscientific approach to curbing or ending encryption: unverifiable claims backed by fuzzy numbers and a continued unwillingness to address the situation as it is, rather than what he portrays it to be.
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, going dark, james comey, law enforcement, privacy
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
"What do you mean my actions have consequences?!"
So the "problem" is far less of a problem than has been presented. While it's true that the number of encrypted devices encountered will rise with the continued implementation of encryption-by-default, the "darkness" predicted by Comey and others (like Manhattan DA Cy Vance) is still nothing more than a rhetorical tactic.
As always when the subject comes up with government and/or police whining about that terrible encryption getting in the way it's worth pointing out that it's a self-inflicted wound they're complaining about.
While it's not necessarily the fault of police and government groups that encryption-by-default is becoming the norm, I'd argue that it is their fault that it's happening as fast as it is, with demonstration after demonstration that if they could snoop through anything they could get their hands on they absolutely would, meaning if the public wanted to protect it's privacy it was going to have to take matters into it's own hands.
All they had to do was show even the slightest bit of restraint and the push towards default encryption likely would have just chugged along, still there but notably slower in it's implementation, yet that was apparently just too much to ask of them.
That said, on a more specific note even assuming Comey's 13% number is accurate(which I don't buy for a second) rather than baseless hyperbole and fearmongering, I'm pretty sure that the number of crimes/criminals unsolved and/or uncaught because they were discussed and planned out of range of a recording device would vastly dwarf that number. Would he next suggest that any conversation must be recorded for the police to go over at their leisure, just in case?
Police and government workers have never had access to all the evidence they want, able to listen in to any and all conversations or discussions, that these conversations are now increasingly taking place in a digital format should not suddenly grant them a 'right' they've never enjoyed before. Just because they might want to be able to listen in to every conversation, or at the very least have the records of it does not mean they should have any expectation of getting such.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "What do you mean my actions have consequences?!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "What do you mean my actions have consequences?!"
Police and government workers have never had access to all the evidence they want, able to listen in to any and all conversations or discussions, that these conversations are now increasingly taking place in a digital format should not suddenly grant them a 'right' they've never enjoyed before. Just because they might want to be able to listen in to every conversation, or at the very least have the records of it does not mean they should have any expectation of getting such
This is a thing that is very very convenient to forget, and also by its very nature impossible to get any hard numbers on. Although, I guess the numbers of crimes not solved because of lack of recording would be: (100%) - (percentage of crimes solved). One could hope all crime would be solved if everything was always recorded.
I also find the number extremely disingenuous for another reason then just deleted info and broken devices. There is no way of knowing if they actually had any evidence, or knowing if what was on the phone already had evidence in other forms, such as witnesses.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "What do you mean my actions have consequences?!"
I also find the number extremely disingenuous for another reason then just deleted info and broken devices. There is no way of knowing if they actually had any evidence, or knowing if what was on the phone already had evidence in other forms, such as witnesses.
A very good point, he's presenting the number as if every single device contained incriminating evidence, when it's entirely possible that most of them had absolutely nothing of relevance to any investigation, meaning the inability to access them isn't stopping anything but their voyeuristic urges to snoop.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "What do you mean my actions have consequences?!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Five Eyes are making a coordinated propaganda effort
OMG! Terrorists going dark!
If they can't get the laws they want in the US they'll just get them threw on of the other participating terror partners
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Presumably the ones that haven't been turned over to the FBI haven't been turned over at least in part because a greater proportion of them have been accessible by local law enforcement than the ones that have been turned over. So the true number of inaccessible drives is less than 13 percent, those that have been turned over are special cases to begin with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yeah but...
I say this now and for ever, if you want to end encryption, start with the federal level and show everyone how silly they are about needing encryption.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Investigations
In a legitimate investigation there are no doubt multiple ways to deal with encrypted communications.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Where there's a will, there's a way
Secret Backdoor in Some U.S. Phones [Also] Sent Data to China, Analysts Say
By MATT APUZZO and MICHAEL S. SCHMIDTNOV. 15, 2016
"Security contractors recently discovered preinstalled software in some Android phones that monitors where users go, whom they talk to and what they write in text messages."
I'm shocked, shocked that Android phones have preinstalled surveillance software. Isn't that the whole point of *Google's* Android software?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Where there's a will, there's a way
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Where there's a will, there's a way
The point is, Android software, Open Source
or not, is *designed* to spy on users, and
most of the Android vendors take full advantage
of those capabilities.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Window Blinds
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dang liberty!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dang liberty!
The KGB had it made, really? They could not stop people producing and circulating paper copies of banned books.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I can't say how often Comey tells the truth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"We believe in the FBI that we need a conversation..."
"You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How many crimes are prevented by crypto?
So as it goes dark for the FBI, so it goes dark for criminals. The FBI will make fewer thought-crime convictions, but the number of wire fraud crimes committed will also go down.
Over the long term, I think we will find the crimes offset by crypto, will exceed any cultural benefit of crypto not existing.
So better crypto == less crime (probably?). Yes, there will be some fluctuation in which crimes are prosecuted. But overall we will all benefit. Everybody is on the the same side here.
It would be nice if Comey eventually figured that out. Right now he is standing outside of the lunch room, banging on the door and demanding entry. The door isn't locked. It never was.
Typical really. Why understand the problem, if you can make your quota without doing so?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lets do it!
BUT.
On the other hand we will no longer have to take govt officials to court over emails that they don't want made public, because they will by nature, be public anyway because there will be NO encryption.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Comey does not really have a choice
The obvious choice will be Comey, for 'not doing enough'. His only way out is to ask for more support than congress and government are prepared to give him. 'If only you had given me the money/people/encryption breaking powers I told you I need, the massacre would not have happened.'
Refusing Comey's request is not really an option, though:
'If only congress had allowed the FBI to crack terrorist phones, those people would not have died.' So their only choice is to give in, however ridiculous the request may seem.
At which stage Comey has to ask for more powers his base, and the circle begins again ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
James Comey Remains a Joke
Jimmy you have more to be concerned about than trying to invade the rights of American citizens by lying about encryption and over stating your need to hack into anyone's computer at any time. You're a traitor.
Get lost Comey, like another commenter said, encryption is here to stay.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And probably in many cases the FBI was unable to get in to the phones, but there was nothing there the FBI had any business reading anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If the FBI was serious about solving crimes, how about something real, like the rape kit backlog? http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/09/23/how-the-u-s-ended-up-with-400-000-untested-rape-kit s.html
That's 'criminals not caught, ...evidence not found, ... sentences that are far, far shorter for pedophiles and others' And that's for real predators that have actually harmed another person, as opposed to mentally ill people that only looked at CP, and may never commit a true assault.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"But going through all those would take work, crippling encryption gives us an easy way to snoop whenever and wherever we want with almost no effort. Even better, with no effective encryption crime will absolutely skyrocket, meaning we can demand even more power and more money in order to 'deal with the unprecedented digital apocalypse'. It's a win-win!"
-Bizzaro(which is to say honest) Comey
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cant confirm whats working, because people will start using it
Cant confirm whats circumvented, incase the tools at their disposal may suddenly vanish overnight with updates/patches
Their third and favorite option, lie.......pick an encryption thats really strong and respected, claim it unhackable, a nuisance, make some hoopla........and fail to mention that they have an exploit for it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]