5 ms·

I also watched most of the hearing[1], and Comey was very practiced at sticking to his story. However, one bit in particular stood out as something I haven't he

by pdkl95 11y ago

I also watched most of the hearing[1], and Comey was very practiced at sticking to his story. However, one bit in particular stood out as something I haven't heard before: he seemed to criticize Apple for trying to protect people. He went off on a brief tangent at one point where he said things like[2]: "It's not Apple's job to protect the American people." "They sell phones, they don't sell public safety. That's our business to worry about." He spent a minute or two saying things like that. 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 - isn't it the job of any manufacturer to make sure their product is safe? Wouldn't any kind of courier have a duty to protect what that which they carry? [1] side note: I'm actually very impressed by most of Representatives understanding of the issue and the fairness of their questions. [2] These may not be exact quotes! This is what I remember, I'll see if I can find the spot in the video later.

joering2 11y ago
> "They sell phones, they don't sell public safety. That's our business to worry about." He is absolutely right! But its also true that FBI and Gov et al failed miserably at keeping us safe. Heck, they even failed multiple times at keeping our information safe behind their supposedly unbreakable walls. So no wonder things took this turn! Any given day, I would rather go with Apple's security attempts, even if "not their business", than accepting FBI's crack on it.
- ianstormtaylor 11y ago
  Actually I'm not sure he's right. (Completely at least.) It's definitely the FBI's job to worry about public safety. But I don't think it isn't Apple's job to sell public safety. As I see it, they sell whatever they choose to sell, as any business does, in the interest of making a profit. These days privacy has becoming a much bigger issue, and something that consumers will pay for. And from the way Apple pitches their products, it seems that they do sell safety.
  - newman314 11y ago
    FBI is LEO not PSO... Heck, their acronym expands to Investigation not mall cop public safety...
    - pdkl95 11y ago
      > FBI is LEO Not anymore. They dropped “law enforcement” from their primary mission, changing it to “national security”. http://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/fbis-main-mission-now-not-law-enforcement http://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/fbis-main-mission-now-not...
      - ionised 11y ago
        That's clearly when it all started to go wrong.
alanwatts 11y ago
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
zaroth 11y ago
Yes, I think you're right and I think the FTC would also disagree with Comey on that one. Companies have a duty of care to take reasonable and appropriate measures to maintain the privacy of customer data in their care, commensurate with the scale and sensitivity of the data, and the cost and availability of the tools and technology to protect it. By that definition it's precisely the Apples and Googles of the world who have the greatest responsibility to design their products to be secure. In what strange world would we expect the FBI to design TouchID or TrueCrypt or ChaCha20? If anything history has shown us we can't trust NIST or IETF to get it right, or even not to be secretly subverted to get it wrong!
- infinii 11y ago
  Agreed. By Comey's argument, manufacturers shouldn't put authentication in the devices as that's the FBI's responsibility?
prebrov 11y ago
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".
- jowiar 11y ago
  There's a reason that video rentals are among the more well-legally-protected bits of personal information...
- jessaustin 11y ago
  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.
  - kbenson 11y ago
    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.
    - adventured 11y ago
      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.
zebra 11y ago
> They sell phones, they don't sell public safety No, they don't, but they sell personal data safety.
rhizome 11y ago
This almost sounds like Comey sees this as some sort of turf war, with Apple infringing on his responsibilities. He is saying the FBI should have veto power over computer security features.
baby 11y ago
> It's not Apple's job to protect the American people They're not only protecting Americans.
- tajen 11y ago
  True. What Comey might not see here is that Apple is fighting to keep its credit on the international market, and so should all US companies do.
studentrob 11y ago
Yup Comey did say that, https://youtu.be/g1GgnbN9oNw?t=3h16m18s https://youtu.be/g1GgnbN9oNw?t=3h16m18s It's ridiculous to argue that the DOJ is the sole provider of public safety.
aleem 11y ago
> 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.
- studentrob 11y ago
  > 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
rosser 11y ago
"It's not Apple's job to protect the American people." Perhaps not, Mr. Comey. It is, however, their job to protect their customers.

by pdkl95 11y ago

joering2 11y ago

> "They sell phones, they don't sell public safety. That's our business to worry about." He is absolutely right! But its also true that FBI and Gov et al failed miserably at keeping us safe. Heck, they even failed multiple times at keeping our information safe behind their supposedly unbreakable walls. So no wonder things took this turn! Any given day, I would rather go with Apple's security attempts, even if "not their business", than accepting FBI's crack on it.

ianstormtaylor 11y ago
Actually I'm not sure he's right. (Completely at least.) It's definitely the FBI's job to worry about public safety. But I don't think it isn't Apple's job to sell public safety. As I see it, they sell whatever they choose to sell, as any business does, in the interest of making a profit. These days privacy has becoming a much bigger issue, and something that consumers will pay for. And from the way Apple pitches their products, it seems that they do sell safety.
- newman314 11y ago
  FBI is LEO not PSO... Heck, their acronym expands to Investigation not mall cop public safety...
  - pdkl95 11y ago
    > FBI is LEO Not anymore. They dropped “law enforcement” from their primary mission, changing it to “national security”. http://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/fbis-main-mission-now-not-law-enforcement http://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/fbis-main-mission-now-not...
    - ionised 11y ago
      That's clearly when it all started to go wrong.

alanwatts 11y ago

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

zaroth 11y ago

Yes, I think you're right and I think the FTC would also disagree with Comey on that one. Companies have a duty of care to take reasonable and appropriate measures to maintain the privacy of customer data in their care, commensurate with the scale and sensitivity of the data, and the cost and availability of the tools and technology to protect it. By that definition it's precisely the Apples and Googles of the world who have the greatest responsibility to design their products to be secure. In what strange world would we expect the FBI to design TouchID or TrueCrypt or ChaCha20? If anything history has shown us we can't trust NIST or IETF to get it right, or even not to be secretly subverted to get it wrong!

infinii 11y ago
Agreed. By Comey's argument, manufacturers shouldn't put authentication in the devices as that's the FBI's responsibility?

prebrov 11y ago

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".

jowiar 11y ago
There's a reason that video rentals are among the more well-legally-protected bits of personal information...
jessaustin 11y ago
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.
- kbenson 11y ago
  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.
  - adventured 11y ago
    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.

zebra 11y ago

> They sell phones, they don't sell public safety No, they don't, but they sell personal data safety.

rhizome 11y ago

This almost sounds like Comey sees this as some sort of turf war, with Apple infringing on his responsibilities. He is saying the FBI should have veto power over computer security features.

baby 11y ago

> It's not Apple's job to protect the American people They're not only protecting Americans.

tajen 11y ago
True. What Comey might not see here is that Apple is fighting to keep its credit on the international market, and so should all US companies do.

studentrob 11y ago

Yup Comey did say that, https://youtu.be/g1GgnbN9oNw?t=3h16m18s https://youtu.be/g1GgnbN9oNw?t=3h16m18s It's ridiculous to argue that the DOJ is the sole provider of public safety.

aleem 11y ago

> 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.

studentrob 11y ago
> 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

rosser 11y ago

"It's not Apple's job to protect the American people." Perhaps not, Mr. Comey. It is, however, their job to protect their customers.