FBI Investigating New Information Regarding Hillary Clinton... Because Of The Anthony Weiner Sexting Investigation

from the never-email dept

Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server (at times kept in her own basement...) has obviously been a big story during this campaign -- and for a variety of obvious, yet stupid, reasons, the discussion has become ridiculously partisan. What people should be able to admit on all sides of the debate is that Clinton's use of a private email server was incredibly stupid and, at the very least, calls into serious question the judgment of whoever told her this was okay. It also, almost certainly, put serious information at risk of being exposed through hacks. But, earlier this year, the FBI came out and said that it didn't actually break the law. There was a bit of the old "high court, low court" to this whole setup, because you could see how someone with much less fame or status would be nailed to the wall by the DOJ if they wanted to put that person away.

Either way, the surprise of today is the new announcement by James Comey that the FBI is investigating some new emails that were apparently discovered in an "unrelated case" on "a device." There were a couple of hours of speculation on this, with gradual denials -- not the Wikileaks investigation, not the Clinton Foundation investigation -- until it was revealed that it was from the investigation into Anthony Weiner's sexting. Law enforcement seized devices belonging to both Weiner and his then wife (they've since filed for divorce), Huma Abedin, who is a close Clinton aide (and who also had an email account on the private Clinton server). Other reports have noted that the emails aren't ones that were withheld from the original investigation, so it's not an issue of withholding info, but could potentially reveal issues about the motivations and setup of the private server.

In political circles this is raising eyebrows, coming just 11 days before the election, in a campaign where Clinton's opponent, Donald Trump, has repeatedly pointed to her use of an email server as a reason that she should be in jail, and even promising to appoint a special prosecutor to go after her for this (which, uh, actually isn't how the President is supposed to use that power, but...). Comey's letter doesn't go into much detail, though reporters have been getting more and more details. The letter was sent to a variety of people in Congress, on key committees, including the heads of the Intelligence, Judiciary, Oversight and Homeland Security committees.

Dear Messrs Chairmen:

In previous congressional testimony, I referred to the fact that the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) had completed its investigation of former Secretary Clinton's personal email server. Due to recent developments, I am writing to supplement my previous testimony.

In connection with an unrelated case, the FBI has learned of the existence of emails that appear to be pertinent to the investigation. I am writing to inform you that the investigative team briefed me on this yesterday, and I agreed that the FBI should take appropriate investigative steps designed to allow investigators to review these emails to determine whether they contain classified information, as well as to assess their importance to our investigation.

Although the FBI cannot yet assess whether or not this material may be significant, and I cannot predict how long it will take us to complete this additional work, I believe it is important to update your Committees about our efforts in light of my previous testimony.

In a perfect world, this kind of story should lead to open discussions on better email technologies, email etiquette, encryption, over-classification and such. Instead, everyone's going to play political hacky sack with this one, with Clinton supporters arguing it's no big deal (though it is) and Trump supporters either feeling vindicated for earlier claims or arguing that the FBI failed to do its job properly before. This campaign has been nothing if not full of surprises.

Filed Under: anthony weiner, classification, emails, fbi, hillary clinton, huma abedin, james comey, security

FBI Director: We Need More Data On Police Shootings So Law Enforcement Can 'Change The Narrative'

from the it's-not-about-accountability,-it's-about-control dept

FBI Director James Comey didn't dig into his bag of "Ferguson Effect" rhetorical devices during his comments to a law enforcement conference on Sunday, but he came close. Under that theory, the possibility of being held accountable by citizens and their recording devices has apparently been holding officers back from enforcing laws, making arrests, or otherwise earning their paychecks.

The problem now is a lack of data, Comey claims. Law enforcement has lost control of the narrative, he stated, as if a one-sided portrayal of every police use of excessive/deadly force was somehow beneficial to the nation.

Dramatic videos of deadly law enforcement encounters and the absence of reliable data about how often police use force contribute to a regrettable narrative that "biased police are killing black men at epidemic rates," FBI Director James Comey said Sunday.

That story line has formed amid a lack of comprehensive, national data about how many citizens are killed or injured at the hands of police officers.

Thanks to the DOJ and FBI's active disinterest in collecting this data (until just recently), the "narrative" is no longer law enforcement's to control. Comey at least admits the FBI -- which was charged with collecting this data but somehow believed voluntary reporting would result in a comprehensive dataset -- is partly to blame.

We do not know whether number of black, brown or white people being shot by police is up because we have not collected data.

The problem with Comey's comments is that he apparently believes data on excessive force and killings by police officers will be ultimately exculpatory.

We need to show people what American law enforcement is really like, because if they see what we see, the chasm will close.

But the data collected by the public of its own initiative shows exactly what Comey claims it doesn't: that law enforcement officers are killing black men at "epidemic rates." Worse, Comey believes data collected and disseminated well after the fact will somehow be able to defuse immediate reactions to released video of officers killing or abusing citizens.

Videos of fatal police encounters that capture the public's attention and are shared broadly across the internet can fuel the perception that "something terrible is being done by the police," even if the data aren't there to back it up.

Given the audience, Comey probably didn't feel comfortable pitching the truth: that policing in America is every bit as bad as it's portrayed to be. Comey thinks data will give law enforcement control over the narrative, but that seems to be his only concern. The culture of American policing needs to change before the data start matching law enforcement's narrative.

Almost without fail, DOJ investigations of law enforcement agencies find two things: routine use of excessive force and biased policing. These aren't anomalies or "bad apples." This is how policing in America works.

As for the narrative, law enforcement still largely controls it. The corpse of the recently killed is barely on the way to the city morgue before law enforcement officials are dumping criminal records and officers' "feared for their safety" claims into the hands of reporters. No amount of pointing to stats is going to change the fact that far too many interactions are needlessly escalated by responding officers, or that biased police tactics are generating far too many interactions in the first place.

While it's good to know the FBI is finally going to push for better data collection on police use of force, the fact that it did nothing for nearly two decades counts against any goodwill it might hope to generate by finally doing its job. Unfortunately for those hoping this might lead to better policing, Jim Comey has made it clear it's really about controlling the narrative and pushing the American public to view law enforcement the way Comey feels they should be viewed: as good people in tough jobs who rarely, if ever, screw up. We'll just have to see what sort of spin is applied when Comey realizes the numbers aren't going to add up to his preconceptions.

Filed Under: data, fbi, james comey, law enforcement, police shootings

FBI's Comey: Actually, Chasing ISIS Off Twitter Makes It More Difficult For Us To Follow Them

from the things-to-think-about dept

Over and over again we keep hearing politicians and others going on and on about the need for social media companies like Facebook, Twitter and Google to kick ISIS users off their platforms. Both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump have called for this. And some people at these companies are supportive of this idea. Twitter regularly feels compelled to talk about how many ISIS accounts it removes.

Yet, as we've pointed out each time it's done so, this seems backwards. We've noted that intelligence officials have claimed that they actually get really good intelligence from following these social media accounts. But generally those voices aren't heard as much. So it's actually great to see FBI Direct James Comey (someone we rarely agree with) come out and say it directly: kicking ISIS members off Twitter makes things more difficult for law enforcement.

"We are making good progress with the help of companies like Twitter at chasing the Islamic State" off the platform—the microblogging site has suspended hundreds of thousands of accounts promoting terrorism—but Comey said the challenge is that such efforts push some users "to a place where they’re less able to proselytize broadly but more able to communicate in a secure way. [We've] chased them to apps like Telegram.”

Now, of course, this all seems part of Comey's effort to then demonize encryption. But there is a larger point here: when terrorists are using social media and revealing useful info, why should we try to kick them off those platforms? Let them make mistakes.

I know that the big fear from some is that letting ISIS use Twitter means they can better "recruit" but almost every study on this notes that online recruitment isn't really that effective. Most recruitment happens from people who actually know people. And cutting ISIS people off from Twitter also kills off good opportunities for counterspeech, like the time that an ISIS leader called on Muslims to join ISIS, and a whole bunch of Muslims responded with mocking tweets instead: Yes, yes, I know that people saying stuff we disagree with online is very scary -- but silencing them has serious costs as well. So, yes, here's a rare instance where we agree with James Comey: pushing ISIS members off of Twitter is a bad idea. It harms the ability of law enforcement to follow them (and, gives Comey more opportunities to whine about encryption). Just keep them on Twitter and let law enforcement and the intelligence community follow them.

Filed Under: censorship, encryption, fbi, isis, james comey, law enforcement, social media, surveillance
Companies: twitter

FBI Director: Our Electronic Voting System Is Such A Complete Mess, It Would Be Difficult To Hack

from the well,-then dept

There's been plenty of talking going around this election cycle about the terrible security problems with our current voting technology -- along with some conspiracy-theory level talk of foreign agents looking to "hack" the election. We haven't been very impressed with officials telling us all to calm down and it's difficult to see how FBI director James Comey did himself any favors by basically arguing that the voting system is secure... mainly because of what a complete and utter mess it is. The larger point he's making is somewhat valid, if clunky, in the fact that each state runs their own voting, so it's not like hackers can get into one central system and wreak havoc. The different systems definitely make it harder. But arguing that this is a sign of good security seems kind of ridiculous:

“The beauty of the American voting system is that it is dispersed among the 50 states, and it is clunky as heck,’’ said Mr. Comey. “A lot of people have found that challenging over the years, but the beauty of that is it’s not exactly a swift part of the internet of things, and so it is hard for an actor to reach our voting process.’’

Yeah, that's basically security through obscurity... at scale. Not exactly very reassuring, even if the underlying point may be true.

Wouldn't it be better if we just made sure the systems were actually secure (i.e., not computerized and connected to the internet) rather than just "clunky"?

Filed Under: e-voting, elections, fbi, hacking, james comey

Former Attorney General Speechwriter: James Comey Most Autonomous FBI Director Since J. Edgar Hoover

from the J.-Edgar-Comey dept

Riley Roberts, speechwriter for former attorney general Eric Holder, has a fascinating examination of James Comey's first four years as the head of the FBI. It details his frequently-antagonistic relationship with, well, nearly everyone, as well as his long history of going head-to-head with high-ranking government officials.

Roberts says no FBI director since J. Edgar Hoover has acted with such autonomy. The unprecedented public discussion of the agency's Clinton email investigation is just one such example. While Comey was undoubtedly correct that there was significant public interest in not just the outcome, but the inner workings of the investigation, his decision to hold a press conference and release investigative documents came as a surprise to his closest colleagues.

By and large, Justice Department lawyers have declined to criticize Comey in public, for fear of angering the FBI director. But in personal conversations and expletive-laden email threads, many were apoplectic at his handling of the Clinton case. One aide described senior officials who should have been involved in the announcement scrambling to watch it on television. Some were particularly incensed by the editorial commentary sprinkled throughout Comey’s statement.

While there is some begrudging respect for Comey's refusal to adhere to protocol or outside political forces, there are just as many that feel Comey's actions aren't prompted by a desire to make the FBI look better, but rather to make Comey look better. Comey serves Comey first, something that has led to him touting the heavily-debunked "Ferguson Effect," arguing against long-overdue federal sentencing reform, and fiercely advocating for encryption backdoors when even the Obama administration won't back him up.

Comey appears to be the worst kind of idealist: one that clings to his beliefs, but only when they serve his purpose. Comey was a key figure in a highly-publicized fight against NSA overreach back in 2004 -- one that culminated in a bedside visit to a hospitalized John Ashcroft in order to block the Stellar Wind domestic surveillance program. But Comey was only very temporarily a champion of the public's privacy and civil liberties.

Senior White House officials descended upon the intensive care unit where Ashcroft was convalescing after emergency surgery, hoping to bully the ailing attorney general into approving the surveillance program. Comey raced to the hospital to head them off, enlisting then-FBI Director Robert Mueller III to accompany him. With backup from Comey and Mueller, the bedridden Ashcroft held firm, the White House was forced to retreat, and the courageous deputy attorney general was hailed—almost universally—as a hero.

This is where the story customarily ends: with Comey, who would sooner have resigned (and taken Mueller with him) than violate his principles, riding into the sunset. But like so much of the mythmaking that goes on in Washington, this heroic picture—like Comey’s victory—is incomplete.

The truth is that Stellar Wind did not meet an ignominious end in Ashcroft’s hospital room in 2004. It continued through late 2011; some elements remain in place even today. And the program was reauthorized, with slight modifications, not in defiance of Comey’s categorical denunciations, but on his signature—less than a month after this high drama took place.

The problem with Comey's willingness to push his own agenda, rather than one that more closely adheres to his agency's, is that his office is pretty much a law unto itself. The agency has no clearly defined mandate that governs its actions, and the director's office isn't overseen directly, but rather grouped into other Congressional and administration oversight efforts -- none of which have been consistently effective in curbing agency misconduct or abuse of its powers.

Roberts notes that there could be more trouble ahead. Comey has only served four years of his 10-year appointment, meaning he'll soon be interacting with a new Commander-in-Chief. If it's Hillary Clinton, it's safe to assume the antagonism and resistance to White House instruction and intervention will only become more aggressive. If it's Trump, the end result could be much more unpredictable -- and not in a way that will generate any positive side effects.

A Donald Trump presidency, on the other hand, would pit the headstrong FBI director against a know-nothing strongman—a “law and order” president with little regard for the law. Dramatic and likely escalating, clashes would be virtually inevitable. And the potential for lasting damage would be immense.

One thing is guaranteed: Comey has cared little for official administration stances on issues like encryption, and installing a new person in the Oval Office isn't going to change that. The question is how long he lasts when faced with an administration -- Trump's or Clinton's -- that might start pushing for an early retirement.

Filed Under: autonomy, fbi, j. edgar hoover, james comey, politics, riley roberts

James Comey Claims He Wants An 'Adult Conversation' About Encryption; Apparently 'Adults' Ignore Experts

from the the-child-is-you dept

Oh, James Comey. The FBI Director seems to have staked out his reputation on being the guy who will go to his grave refusing to understand what basically every technology expert has been telling him for the past couple of years: his desire to backdoor encryption will make everyone less safe. But Comey is pot committed on his belief that encryption is bad and that Silicon Valley just needs to nerd harder and it'll somehow come up with encryption that has a magic golden key for him. His latest is saying that it's time for an "adult conversation" on encryption:

"The conversation we've been trying to have about this has dipped below public consciousness now, and that's fine," Comey said at a symposium organized by Symantec, a technology company. "Because what we want to do is collect information this year so that next year we can have an adult conversation in this country."

This is not just insulting, but counterproductive. Plenty of experts have been trying their damnedest to have an "adult conversation" with Comey, explaining to him why he's wrong about the risks of "going dark," while others have -- in fairly great detail -- explained the serious dangers behind Comey's approach.

Comey's response to these efforts so far has been the equivalent of sticking his fingers in his ears and screaming "nah, nah, nah -- can't hear you!" while repeating his "nerd harder" mantra.

An "adult conversation" has to be one where someone in Comey's position is able to admit that maybe, just maybe, he's wrong. It's not one where he gets to keep demanding a new conversation until people tell him that night is day. Because that's just silly.

This new claim about an "adult conversation" is also stupidly counterproductive. All it's going to do is make the actual experts here -- like the authors of that MIT paper on the dangers of backdoor -- dig in and have absolutely no interest in dealing with Comey. How could you when he so flippantly brushes off all the work they've done already?

If we're going to have an adult conversation, it needs to at least start with a recognition that maybe Comey overreacted here. Without that, it's just Comey acting like a child, demanding that everyone do things his way over and over and over and over again.

Filed Under: adult conversation, doj, encryption, fbi, going dark, james comey

FBI: Clinton 'Should Have Known' Private Email Server 'No Way To Handle Classified Info', But No Charges Will Be Sought

from the not-even-the-sting-of-a-wrist-slap dept

FBI Director James Comey just held a press conference detailing the FBI's findings during its investigation of Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server. The findings are irrefutably ugly.

The FBI, "painstakingly" reassembling emails scattered to the digital wind by device abandonment, multiple server upgrades, lawyers' brute-force attempts to separate personal emails from work-related emails, and a general lack of professionalism across the board, found that Clinton's private email server contained :

• 110 classified emails in 52 chains
• 8 top secret emails
• 36 "secret" emails
• 8 "confidential" emails

All were clearly designated as such at the time sent or received. Additionally, another 2,000 emails had been "up-classified" to confidential after being sent or received.

It also found several work-related emails Clinton's staff did not include with the 30,000 handed over to the State Department for release to FOIA requesters.

There was no built-in archival function in Clinton's private server setup, a basic feature considered essential by professionals. This slowed the FBI's investigation as it was forced to reconstruct emails from the digital detritus left behind by "routine purging" and device deactivation.

As noted above, Clinton's lawyers made several efforts to delete "personal" emails, but they did so by using searches and header info, rather than actually reading the emails' content. The FBI did read the content of what it could recover, finding it likely that some work-related emails vanished during these purges. It also discovered Clinton hired some smart lawyers: "lawyers cleaned their devices in such a way as to preclude complete forensic recovery."

But at the end of it all, the FBI found Clinton's use of private email server to be severely stupid, rather than criminal. Comey says the FBI found no signs of "intentional misconduct" by lawyers during personal email deletions or routine purges. Likewise, there was "no clear evidence of intentional misconduct by staffers," but Clinton's emails were "clearly mishandled."

The FBI's final conclusion is damning, but only in terms of harsh words, not actual punishment. Clinton and her staff "knew or should have known" a private email server was "no way to properly handle classified email" -- especially when housed on private server with "no full-time staff" or anything approaching the level of service one would equate with email services like Gmail. Comey also noted that Clinton used her personal domain "extensively" outside of the US, needlessly exposing sensitive information in the "presence of hostile actors."

James Comey also took a little time to bash her agency, stating that the FBI found the "security culture" of the State Department to be "lacking."

But for anyone who was hoping this would result in criminal charges, the FBI has nothing in the way of good news. Comey says it's not the FBI's call to pursue prosecution, but stated that "no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case" against Clinton, despite her repeated careless handling of sensitive info via her barely-competent private email service.

Final call, according to Comey: Clinton, staffers may be subject to security or administrative sanctions, but "no [criminal] charges are appropriate" in this case.

Clinton walks. The FBI has determined there was no malice in her actions. Being stupid and dishonest is no crime, at least not as far as the FBI is willing to push it. The DOJ has the final call, but it's highly unlikely it will override the FBI's recommendation. The decision is one that people in Clinton's position are far more likely to receive. Others lower on the political ladder -- or, god forbid, just average voting Americans -- are far less likely to receive this much deference from the nation's top prosecutors.

Filed Under: fbi, hillary clinton, james comey, state department

FBI Won't Tell Me How Much It Paid To Break Into Syed Farook's iPhone, Saying It Might Jeopardize Its Investigation

from the say-what-now? dept

As you probably recall, several months ago, after going to court to try to force Apple to write some software to allow the FBI to hack into Syed Farook's work iPhone, the DOJ and FBI abruptly called off the case, claiming that it had been able to get an exploit that let it into the phone. A few weeks later, FBI Director James Comey suggested that the government paid over $1.2 million to get that exploit from some "hackers." Some later news reports indicated that the FBI quietly tried to talk down those numbers, and suggested that perhaps Comey was just bad at math (rather than name a number, he said that the FBI had paid "more than I will make in the remainder of this job, which is seven years and four months....").

Either way, I sent a FOIA request into the FBI that day asking for either the invoice or any other documentation showing how much the FBI had paid to get into Farook's work iPhone. The FBI has now rejected my FOIA request, arguing that since this is an "ongoing investigation," responding to such a request might somehow "interfere" with the case. This is complete hogwash, for a variety of reasons. First, Farook is dead. Second, what investigation is there left to do? We know that Farook and his wife shot up Farook's office party and killed a bunch of people. We also know that the FBI was so unconcerned about further investigation that it allowed reporters to ransack Farook's townhouse soon after the shooting. Third, how the hell would revealing the price impact the investigation? The answer is that it will not. There is nothing in saying "it cost us $1 million" or "it cost us $653,000" or whatever, that in any way interferes with whatever investigation remains to be done.

This is nothing more than the FBI doing what the FBI frequently does with FOIA requests. Denying them because the FBI doesn't want to answer.

Filed Under: exploit, fbi, foia, iphone, james comey, syed farook, vulnerability

James Comey Still Trying To Blame Increase In Violent Crime On 'Viral Videos'

from the pitching-woe dept

FBI Director James Comey says we're "going dark" as more platforms move towards encryption. Nobody's buying it. Not Congress. Not NSA officials. Definitely not those who have actually researched the subject.

He also says people with cameras are causing spikes in crime rates by making police officers so self-conscious they can't do their job. Comey blamed citizens with cameras for escalating crime rates last October. He was immediately contradicted by Attorney General Loretta Lynch. Having learned nothing from the experience, Comey has dusted off his 2015 talking points for redeployment in 2016.

FBI Director James Comey said Wednesday he believes a "viral video effect" causes weak police work and could be "at the heart" of a spike in violent crime in some American cities.

“There’s a perception that police are less likely to do the marginal additional policing that suppresses crime—the getting out of your car at 2 in the morning and saying to a group of guys, ‘Hey, what are you doing here?’” he told reporters at FBI headquarters.

This is a guy with access to some of the best intelligence and advice your tax dollars can buy. And yet he'd rather tuck his thumbs into his suspenders, lean towards reporters and aw-shucks at them with his "I may just be a simple director of the most powerful law enforcement agency in the United States, but…" pitches.

He sounds like a small town local running for sheriff, rather than a top government official with his finger on the pulse of criminal activity and law enforcement technology.

Comey spoke to reporters after being briefed on crime statistics from 40 major cities, most of which saw an increase in murders, he said.

"I was very worried about it last fall and I am in many ways more worried," Comey told reporters at FBI headquarters. "The numbers are not only going up, they're continuing to go up faster than they were going up last year. And I worry very much it's a problem that most of America can drive around. ... I don't know what the answer is, but, holy cow, do we have a problem."

That's classic Comey: You've got problems? I don't have answers.

Encryption got you down? I'm sure the "smart people" in tech can deliver unicorns on command. No, I'm sorry. I don't have any technical details but, you know, those guys at Apple and Google are so damn smart. They'll think of something.

Crime rates spiking in major cities? "Holy cow, do we have a problem?" Any ideas, Mr. Top of the Law Enforcement Food Chain? "I don't know what the answer is."

OK. Well… um… keep on earning that paycheck... I guess.

Not for nothing has James Comey earned a petition calling for his removal. Comey claims criminals are somehow exploiting a "tech gap" the FBI can't seem to close, despite its hundreds of millions of dollars. I don't know how many criminals are staying one step ahead of the FBI in a tech arms race anyone can participate in. (The fact that the FBI can buy/obtain/hoard exploits and malware, along with other high-tech tools the general public can't purchase, somehow always gets lost in law enforcement's portrayal of this so-called "race.") But it can certainly be said criminals are one step ahead of the FBI's top man, who often seems genuinely baffled by the issues confronting his agency.

It may be that Comey is playing dumb because he believes it's the best way to advance his agency's agenda. But he's been doing this for more than a year and there's been no forward movement. If anything, the FBI is less likely to receive Congressional assistance than it was before Comey began running his mouth on these two subjects.

Not only has he lost the support of Congress, but he's not winning any powerful friends within the law enforcement community.

“He ought to stick to what he knows,” James O. Pasco Jr., executive director of the National Fraternal Order of Police, told the New York Times. “He’s basically saying that police officers are afraid to do their jobs with absolutely no proof.”

Unfortunately, this -- and "going dark" -- appears to be all Comey knows.

Filed Under: blame, crime, fbi, james comey, law enforcement, transparency

Petition Calls For James Comey To Hang Up His Anti-Encryption Hat And Resign As Head Of The FBI

from the running-away-with-the-unpopularity-contest dept

James Comey continues to cut himself adrift from the encryption debate, taking a hardline stance not reflected by others in the intelligence community. While he has a few voices in his echo chamber (mainly Manhattan DA Cy Vance and… well, that's really about it), for the most part, Comey has become a street corner doomsayer, alternately crying out against the going-darkness and mumbling about "smart people" at "tech companies" and their unwillingness to carve government-sized doors in their encryption.

His testimony before Congress-- during the heated battle with Apple over the unlocking of a dead terrorist's iPhone -- was mostly composed of things he couldn't talk about and things he didn't know. At times, it was difficult to distinguish between the two.

Maybe it's time for the FBI to put someone more credible in charge. That's what Fight for the Future believes. It's crafted an online petition asking for Comey to step down as the FBI's director. In support of its suggestion, it points to Comey's lies to Congress about the San Bernardino iPhone, the mishandling of that case, the statements of former national security officials about the "stupidity" of punching holes in encryption, as well as his long history with the Bush Administration, in which Comey (as Deputy Attorney General) helped approve warrantless wiretapping programs and the CIA's "enhanced interrogation technique." Fight for the Future sums up:

We're afraid that after all these years unchecked, you've lost sight of what's good for American Democracy.

Director Comey, you're off the rails and your extreme behavior is putting lives in danger.

The petition has gathered more than 8,000 signatures at the time of writing. Fight for the Future has no target number for signatures and openly admits its effort has zero chance of forcing Comey to resign.

Evan Greer, the campaign director at Fight for the Future, said in an email that the letter was designed to send a message and acknowledged that it would not prompt the resignation of Comey, whose 10-year term ends in 2023.

"I think this is more one of those 'someone had to say it' situations," she said. "The goal of the letter is to show that Comey is isolated and extreme. Do I think he's just going to read this and suddenly decide to resign? Probably not. But he's increasingly losing credibility in D.C. and beyond, and we think this effort will help continue to highlight that."

More people are saying it, not that it ultimately matters to the FBI. Those on the inside may not agree with Comey's assertions, but they're going to let him run his mouth because it has a very small chance of giving it something it wants: encryption backdoors. Even if the FBI has numerous options to break into devices, it can't argue with the convenience of government-mandated backdoors.

But despite Comey's repeated complaints, there's nothing even remotely resembling legislative critical mass on the horizon. Months of saying the same thing over and over again has drummed up the support of a few state legislators in California and New York and surveillance aficionados Dianne Feinstein and Richard Burr on Capitol Hill. That's basically it. For the most part, even the government (at all levels) believes the government shouldn't be undermining encryption.

Filed Under: encryption, going dark, james comey, resign
Companies: fight for the future