It is a turf war because times are changing. This is actually a central theme in the newest James Bond movies, and one that Marshall Mcluhan wrote about back in the 70's:
>Man Hunter and Sleuth: Posture and Imposture
>In one of Sherlock Holmes's adventures his quarry demurs when Holmes declares that he had seen him at a particular spot. The quarry retorts that "I saw nobody follow me there." And Holmes comments, "That is what you may expect to see when I follow you."
>Half the world today is engaged in keeping the other half "under surveillance." This, in fact, is the hang-up of the age of "software" and information. In the preceding "hardware" age the "haves" of the world had kept the "have-nots" under "surveillance." This old beat for flatfoots has now been relegated to the world of popular entertainment. The police state is now a work of art, a bureaucratic ballet of undulating sirens. That is a way of saying that the espionage activities of our multitudinous man hunters and "crediting" agencies are not only archaic, but redundant and irrelevant.
-Marshall McLuhan, Take Today: The Executive as Dropout
I'm delighted to see Congress taking a stand for's right here, and I hope politicians finally realised they do have a personal stake in the matter.
They do have secrets, like most of us and effects of revealing these secrets would have far worse consequences for them and their careers than for most "ordinary citizens", which makes them high-profile targets. Easy targets, too, if (or when) FBI/NSA/CIA allies with some party in domestic political struggle.
Given surveillance powers these guys want, it won't be too long before they decide that next order of business is to find more effective ways to steer political discourse in the favourable direction.
I can see how "ordinary people" would think they "aren't important enough" when it comes to surveillance, but it amazes me that ambitious politicians wouldn't see themselves as "important enough".
There's a reason that video rentals are among the more well-legally-protected bits of personal information...
Given surveillance powers these guys want, it won't be too long before they decide that next order of business is to find more effective ways to steer political discourse in the favourable direction.
This has likely happened already with NSA. FBI are jealous because NSA don't share. Congress already know what a pain it is to deal with NSA; they're not eager to create another effectively ungovernable agency.
If you want to go all the way down that rabbit hole, the NSA could be leveraging its power over politicians to prevent the FBI from gaining power, since power of this sort is relative, not absolute (the FBI's gain would be the NSA's loss).
To be clear, I don't really subscribe to that narrative.
It's very well known historically that these agencies have been fighting with each other since their originations. They fight each other over intel, budgets, turf, governance, talent, technology, etc.
I don't think there's anything to subscribe to or not. It's established fact, widely written about for decades.
I was more referring to the NSA leveraging power over our congressmen and senators due to their knowledge of secrets those politicians may not want exposed. That's a very dangerous game to play, and all it takes is one person not willing to play for it to all come tumbling down for the NSA. So, I don't really subscribe to that narrative.
I'm skeptical that the NSA would do that so explicitly (although given that Snowden's entire set of revelations consisted of "they wouldn't do that ..... oh they did" perhaps I should have less confidence).
I think a far more plausible and subtle form of mental pressure is simply manipulating secrecy and technical bullshit. You don't have to know a Congressman's porn preference to manipulate him if you can instead say, "we are tracking dangerous terrorists and if you don't do exactly what we want, they will win and it'd be an awful shame if an angry analyst leaked to the press the fact that YOU, CONGRESSMAN JONES, prevented us from doing our jobs".
Whether the terrorists really exist or not doesn't matter when you are effectively unauditable, and can easily imply that anyone who gets in your way is directly responsible for the deaths of innocents.
That's exactly it, but it's even simpler than that; when you control the reports that the political leaders are relying on for information, you control the set of options they can select from. Some things never get reported, others get reported such that there is an "obvious correct" choice. Coercive measures are possible, but they shouldn't be necessary in most cases.
Jacob Appelbaum describes this process very well in an interview[1] where talks about the time the CSE[2] tried to recruit him. It's hilarious... and scary for several reasons, including the suggestion that the CSE has to get NSA approval for the people they hire.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vt7XloDNcm4#t=805 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vt7XloDNcm4#t=805
[2] Communications Security Establishment (Canadian SIGINT agency)
Easy targets, too, if (or when) FBI/NSA/CIA allies with some party in domestic political struggle.
I think part of this might be that members of Congress remember the news breaking that the NSA and CIA were spying even on American allies like Chancellor Angela Merkel and got a taste of "is nothing safe?" in their mouths.
So yeah, I'm with you on that nugget.
> This almost sounds like Comey sees this as some sort of turf war, with Apple infringing on his responsibilities. I'm not sure how to interpret that
On the contrary, he showed a good deal of respect for Apple and praised them as a company on numerous occassions. The article characterises it as a "conciliatory tone" which is the correct interpration. I believe this is the best way forward for the FBI and the government.
It's not a turf war. It's just a characterization of the two. Apple employees come into work and think about usability, product design, security and similar problems. FBI employees come into work thinking about counter-terrorism, public safety and intelligence.
Painting Apple as unpatriotic will result in a consumer backlash and make this an Apple vs FBI debate and pit them head-to-head against the most powerful brands in the world. The debate is shifting to "public security vs privacy" instead of Apple vs FBI, which is how a lot of the consumers and Apple fans see this right now.
I rather enjoyed hearing Comey's responses and found Bruce Sewell to lack the same maturity and preparedness. However, I do not empathize with any of Comey's views (interpretation of All Writs Act, privacy vs public security) and neither should anyone else.
> The debate is shifting to "public security vs privacy" instead of Apple vs FBI, which is how a lot of the consumers and Apple fans see this right now
Actually Apple is painting it as a "security vs. security" debate [1] [2]. They point out that every iPhone user's security is put at risk if they are forced to sign software that weakens the iPhone's security.
> I rather enjoyed hearing Comey's responses and found Bruce Sewell to lack the same maturity and preparedness
I thought Sewell performed well. He was given some tough questions he could not have anticipated. Sewell was the one on the hot seat here. Comey did not face as much pressure.
[1] https://youtu.be/g1GgnbN9oNw?t=3h11m46s https://youtu.be/g1GgnbN9oNw?t=3h11m46s
[2] https://youtu.be/g1GgnbN9oNw?t=3h19m39s https://youtu.be/g1GgnbN9oNw?t=3h19m39s