6 ms·

FBI official: It’s America’s choice whether we want to be spied on

60 points by pavornyoh 11y ago

tyre 11y ago
The title is a little misleading. From the article: > FBI Director James Comey told a congressional panel last month that the Obama administration won't ask Congress for legislation requiring the tech sector to install backdoors that let authorities access encrypted data. However, Comey said the administration will lobby private companies to create such backdoors. If the administration asks Congress to legislate on the issue, then they are asking the people to weigh in (through their representatives.) Private lobbying by the executive branch is not the people deciding. Although we elect the president, unilateral executive actions (executive orders, private lobbying) are in the darker-grey areas of representation. Important tool for efficiency's sake, but, used in highly controversial areas, feel to me more like side-stepping sensitive issues. Similarly, his later comments contradict how government surveillance is traditionally implemented: > At the most fundamental level, it really is about the relationship between the people and the government, in particular... when it relates to surveillance by the government of the people and under what set of circumstances do the people want that to happen. What do you want us to do and what risks are you willing to take on all sides of the equation? If the people don't know what means of surveillance are being implemented, they have no way of determining under what circumstances they want surveillance to happen.
- meric 11y ago
  The title is a lie. Either Tech companies are required to install backdoors or the administration will incentivise private companies to create such backdoors. In the best case scenario, it's up the management of the company to refuse to create such backdoors. There's no America's choice here. "Baker said today that it’s important to balance all the different concerns. " This is bad phrasing. Do we decide if it's important to balance all different concerns between a robber and a victim? Police to Robber: "Don't take everything. You only need $200, so take only $100 as a compromise and leave the wallet."
  - nickff 11y ago
    I can imagine an FBI official going to a tech or communications company and saying "either give us access to your users' data, or we will spend our time looking very closely at you". This is especially likely and frightening given the (recent) Yates memo.[1] [1] http://www.justice.gov/dag/file/769036/download http://www.justice.gov/dag/file/769036/download
    - meric 11y ago
      Yes, and in this scenario, the best we can hope for, is a defiant management saying "go ahead, look very closely at us", and publish the communications sent by the FBI in a press release. I can see it's possible something like that will happen but the company would be in serious trouble soon after.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
    - mikeyouse 11y ago
      I don't really get the objections to the Yates memo.. People were outraged that nobody went to jail post-GFC, now the FBI puts together a framework to ensure jailtime for criminals and people are outraged that they're going to cooperate with the businesses to get convictions?
  - rayiner 11y ago
    The difference is that a robber has no legitimate claim to money, while government exists partly (according to some primarily) to provide security from internal and external threats. In fact, the Constitution enshrines that balancing between security and privacy in the 4th amendment. Not all searches are prohibited, only "unreasonable ones." The government has the power to search, without restriction, provided it exercises that power through the check of getting a warrant.
    - meric 11y ago
      Agreed, and I am pointing out the bad phrasing. Just because there's different concerns by different people does not automatically imply it's important to balance them. Perhaps they should be weighted to more to one side and less to the other, which is usually the case. Is it more important for citizens to have a modicum of privacy or is it more important for authorities to have pervasive surveillance?
aston1980 11y ago
I guess it is always that balance, but at the end of the day, he who controls the flow of information does have the ultimate power. Fed's require access to monitor for disruptive things, yet the minute the population finds out, its a free for all( congressional hearings, lawsuits etc...); yet the same political BS occurs when a situation does occur,(9/11) and nothing was done to prevent it. In the end it is a no win situation. Frankly, we do need to be protected.. mainly against ourselves...
- joesmo 11y ago
  How many warnings do you need about people flying planes into buildings to actually do something about it? We had quite detailed warnings from multiple places. And none of them required decryption.
- ionised 11y ago
  > Frankly, we do need to be protected.. mainly against ourselves... That's the logic of fascism.
joesmo 11y ago
How ironic: it's America's choice, but when we get there to make the choice we don't have a way to make it. Seriously, what a bunch of bullshit. The only reason they're not legislating back doors is because they fear the backlash. Making such choices in America is an ability we lost many years ago. Encryption is our last line of defense in a country whose government is no longer bound by the rule of law (was it ever?) and certainly no longer serves the people (though arguably, it never did.)
- jschwartzi 11y ago
  The fact that they fear the backlash is why we're not living in a totalitarian state yet. When our elected officials no longer fear us, we will very soon lose the ability to elect them.
mikeash 11y ago
This is what I've been saying for a while. The US government is all kinds of screwed up, but at the end of the day it's still reasonably representative. If We The People decided tomorrow that we wanted to put a stop to all of this surveillance, then it would stop. The screwed-upness does add some amount of bias, so if it was, say, 51% against and 49% in favor, it might well keep going. But if it was more like 75/25 against, it would stop pretty much immediately. It's our choice. If you don't feel that "our choice" matches your own wishes (it certainly doesn't match mine) then that's just because you're in the minority, or at best you're in a majority with very slim margins.
- joesmo 11y ago
  Tell that to the 2000 presidential election...
  - nickff 11y ago
    Can everyone please stop bringing this up? The 2000 Presidential Election was the inevitable consequence of the electoral system; there is almost no way to recount the votes and get a different result.[1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_election_recount#Post-election_studies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_election_recount#Post-...
    - dragonwriter 11y ago
      > there is almost no way to recount the votes and get a different result. How can you say that when the source you cite specifically points to a study that shows Gore winning by any criteria in a statewide recount in Florida; e.g., that its quite likely that not only did Gore have more votes cast for him than Bush, but also more votes in States that combined had a majority of electoral votes.
      - nickff 11y ago
        If you read the heading on the table you refer to, you would have seen that its title is "Candidate outcomes based on potential non-absentee recounts in Florida presidential election 2000". Absentee ballots do matter, and the court was never even asked to do a statewide recount (to the best of my knowledge). In addition to that, Gore would not have won on an full recount based on the conventional standards for a vote (two corners of the chad punched), as is made clear later in the article, by papers like the New York Times.
avmich 11y ago
It's interesting that those agencies claim their access to communications is required for them to do their work. It feels a little bit like they got too lazy and relying on those telegraph messages used relatively widely - contrary to letter contents - will always be available to them. Now, a couple century later, they're suddenly at the state when that's not always the case - but they did they work relying on that for so long they can't do that otherwise... Wonder what other means to catch criminals could be available?
dmix 11y ago
> We go to judges, we do what the law requires, > Baker said the issue must ultimately be decided by the American people. Which is why they absolutely love Stringrays and have tried so desperately to a) not require warrants to use them and b) shield their usage of it from the public. By 'going dark' on their exploitation of this technology they've managed to restrict public knowledge and ability to debate the fact they are flying Cesnas, containing Stingrays, in non-stop circles around most major American cities. Going as far as buying/registering the planes via shell companies and withholding they're use as evidence in trials.
grhmc 11y ago
> The complexity of having 200 nations, each with access to keys, is just unimaginable,” she said Agreed! Now how are we going to fix the certificate authorities?
mcphage 11y ago
> The FBI has an easier time getting data from companies whose business models depend on viewing customer data, he said. That says it all right there, I think.
NN88 11y ago
To be honest, nothing bad has happened...yet.
EdSharkey 11y ago
You're not the owner of your data if you farm out storage/serving of that data or transmit it with weak/no encryption. You could pay someone to store and manage your data, and have contracts with them to prevent them from sharing the data. But you better be sure that data is stored at the 3rd party encrypted where you hold the keys, otherwise those contracts are meaningless to the government who can demand access to your data in secret if they choose. The way forward I can see is for us all to host servers run from one's own home and with replicas stored at trusted friend's and family's houses in case of disaster. New protocols would need to be invented to replace things like email though, it would require quite an upheaval.
pdkl95 11y ago
> “split-key encryption,” in which tech companies would give governments the ability to decrypt data Aka Skipjack/"Clipper Chip". They are reusing 20 year old plans.

60 points by pavornyoh 11y ago

tyre 11y ago

The title is a little misleading. From the article: > FBI Director James Comey told a congressional panel last month that the Obama administration won't ask Congress for legislation requiring the tech sector to install backdoors that let authorities access encrypted data. However, Comey said the administration will lobby private companies to create such backdoors. If the administration asks Congress to legislate on the issue, then they are asking the people to weigh in (through their representatives.) Private lobbying by the executive branch is not the people deciding. Although we elect the president, unilateral executive actions (executive orders, private lobbying) are in the darker-grey areas of representation. Important tool for efficiency's sake, but, used in highly controversial areas, feel to me more like side-stepping sensitive issues. Similarly, his later comments contradict how government surveillance is traditionally implemented: > At the most fundamental level, it really is about the relationship between the people and the government, in particular... when it relates to surveillance by the government of the people and under what set of circumstances do the people want that to happen. What do you want us to do and what risks are you willing to take on all sides of the equation? If the people don't know what means of surveillance are being implemented, they have no way of determining under what circumstances they want surveillance to happen.

meric 11y ago
The title is a lie. Either Tech companies are required to install backdoors or the administration will incentivise private companies to create such backdoors. In the best case scenario, it's up the management of the company to refuse to create such backdoors. There's no America's choice here. "Baker said today that it’s important to balance all the different concerns. " This is bad phrasing. Do we decide if it's important to balance all different concerns between a robber and a victim? Police to Robber: "Don't take everything. You only need $200, so take only $100 as a compromise and leave the wallet."
- nickff 11y ago
  I can imagine an FBI official going to a tech or communications company and saying "either give us access to your users' data, or we will spend our time looking very closely at you". This is especially likely and frightening given the (recent) Yates memo.[1] [1] http://www.justice.gov/dag/file/769036/download http://www.justice.gov/dag/file/769036/download
  - meric 11y ago
    Yes, and in this scenario, the best we can hope for, is a defiant management saying "go ahead, look very closely at us", and publish the communications sent by the FBI in a press release. I can see it's possible something like that will happen but the company would be in serious trouble soon after.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - mikeyouse 11y ago
    I don't really get the objections to the Yates memo.. People were outraged that nobody went to jail post-GFC, now the FBI puts together a framework to ensure jailtime for criminals and people are outraged that they're going to cooperate with the businesses to get convictions?
- rayiner 11y ago
  The difference is that a robber has no legitimate claim to money, while government exists partly (according to some primarily) to provide security from internal and external threats. In fact, the Constitution enshrines that balancing between security and privacy in the 4th amendment. Not all searches are prohibited, only "unreasonable ones." The government has the power to search, without restriction, provided it exercises that power through the check of getting a warrant.
  - meric 11y ago
    Agreed, and I am pointing out the bad phrasing. Just because there's different concerns by different people does not automatically imply it's important to balance them. Perhaps they should be weighted to more to one side and less to the other, which is usually the case. Is it more important for citizens to have a modicum of privacy or is it more important for authorities to have pervasive surveillance?

aston1980 11y ago

I guess it is always that balance, but at the end of the day, he who controls the flow of information does have the ultimate power. Fed's require access to monitor for disruptive things, yet the minute the population finds out, its a free for all( congressional hearings, lawsuits etc...); yet the same political BS occurs when a situation does occur,(9/11) and nothing was done to prevent it. In the end it is a no win situation. Frankly, we do need to be protected.. mainly against ourselves...

joesmo 11y ago
How many warnings do you need about people flying planes into buildings to actually do something about it? We had quite detailed warnings from multiple places. And none of them required decryption.
ionised 11y ago
> Frankly, we do need to be protected.. mainly against ourselves... That's the logic of fascism.

joesmo 11y ago

How ironic: it's America's choice, but when we get there to make the choice we don't have a way to make it. Seriously, what a bunch of bullshit. The only reason they're not legislating back doors is because they fear the backlash. Making such choices in America is an ability we lost many years ago. Encryption is our last line of defense in a country whose government is no longer bound by the rule of law (was it ever?) and certainly no longer serves the people (though arguably, it never did.)

jschwartzi 11y ago
The fact that they fear the backlash is why we're not living in a totalitarian state yet. When our elected officials no longer fear us, we will very soon lose the ability to elect them.

mikeash 11y ago

This is what I've been saying for a while. The US government is all kinds of screwed up, but at the end of the day it's still reasonably representative. If We The People decided tomorrow that we wanted to put a stop to all of this surveillance, then it would stop. The screwed-upness does add some amount of bias, so if it was, say, 51% against and 49% in favor, it might well keep going. But if it was more like 75/25 against, it would stop pretty much immediately. It's our choice. If you don't feel that "our choice" matches your own wishes (it certainly doesn't match mine) then that's just because you're in the minority, or at best you're in a majority with very slim margins.

joesmo 11y ago
Tell that to the 2000 presidential election...
- nickff 11y ago
  Can everyone please stop bringing this up? The 2000 Presidential Election was the inevitable consequence of the electoral system; there is almost no way to recount the votes and get a different result.[1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_election_recount#Post-election_studies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_election_recount#Post-...
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    > there is almost no way to recount the votes and get a different result. How can you say that when the source you cite specifically points to a study that shows Gore winning by any criteria in a statewide recount in Florida; e.g., that its quite likely that not only did Gore have more votes cast for him than Bush, but also more votes in States that combined had a majority of electoral votes.
    - nickff 11y ago
      If you read the heading on the table you refer to, you would have seen that its title is "Candidate outcomes based on potential non-absentee recounts in Florida presidential election 2000". Absentee ballots do matter, and the court was never even asked to do a statewide recount (to the best of my knowledge). In addition to that, Gore would not have won on an full recount based on the conventional standards for a vote (two corners of the chad punched), as is made clear later in the article, by papers like the New York Times.

avmich 11y ago

It's interesting that those agencies claim their access to communications is required for them to do their work. It feels a little bit like they got too lazy and relying on those telegraph messages used relatively widely - contrary to letter contents - will always be available to them. Now, a couple century later, they're suddenly at the state when that's not always the case - but they did they work relying on that for so long they can't do that otherwise... Wonder what other means to catch criminals could be available?

dmix 11y ago

> We go to judges, we do what the law requires, > Baker said the issue must ultimately be decided by the American people. Which is why they absolutely love Stringrays and have tried so desperately to a) not require warrants to use them and b) shield their usage of it from the public. By 'going dark' on their exploitation of this technology they've managed to restrict public knowledge and ability to debate the fact they are flying Cesnas, containing Stingrays, in non-stop circles around most major American cities. Going as far as buying/registering the planes via shell companies and withholding they're use as evidence in trials.

grhmc 11y ago

> The complexity of having 200 nations, each with access to keys, is just unimaginable,” she said Agreed! Now how are we going to fix the certificate authorities?

mcphage 11y ago

> The FBI has an easier time getting data from companies whose business models depend on viewing customer data, he said. That says it all right there, I think.

NN88 11y ago

To be honest, nothing bad has happened...yet.

EdSharkey 11y ago

You're not the owner of your data if you farm out storage/serving of that data or transmit it with weak/no encryption. You could pay someone to store and manage your data, and have contracts with them to prevent them from sharing the data. But you better be sure that data is stored at the 3rd party encrypted where you hold the keys, otherwise those contracts are meaningless to the government who can demand access to your data in secret if they choose. The way forward I can see is for us all to host servers run from one's own home and with replicas stored at trusted friend's and family's houses in case of disaster. New protocols would need to be invented to replace things like email though, it would require quite an upheaval.

pdkl95 11y ago

> “split-key encryption,” in which tech companies would give governments the ability to decrypt data Aka Skipjack/"Clipper Chip". They are reusing 20 year old plans.