5 ms·

Public officials answer to a different standard than private citizens who run companies. The oath of the FBI is not to make their own jobs easier. It is to ma

Public officials answer to a different standard than private citizens who run companies. The oath of the FBI is not to make their own jobs easier. It is to maintain public security. If the Director of the FBI cannot do that effectively, then that is a blemish on the record of President Obama who appointed Comey. There's a definite need for someone to step up and say that on balance, we are more secure without trying to guarantee government access to encrypted data, or vice versa. So far nobody has taken that high level view and been able to convince any of the early major players in this debate. Lindsey Graham's statement during his questioning of Lynch is the closest we got to a high level player changing sides, demonstrating an understanding of both positions [1]. [1] https://youtu.be/uk4hYAwCdhU?t=6m53s https://youtu.be/uk4hYAwCdhU?t=6m53s

maxerickson 11y ago
Ok, sub in that it would be a valuable tool in carrying out their mission for the making their job easier. The point is that it isn't extraordinary for law enforcement to want investigative powers. If you watch some interviews with Michael Hayden, you'll see him saying just what you want, and I think someone who is a former director of both the CIA and NSA counts as a high level player. Autoplay video, but read the text: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/02/21/ex-nsa-chief-backs-apple-iphone-back-doors/80660024/ http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/02/21/ex-nsa-chief-b...
- studentrob 11y ago
  > Ok, sub in that it would be a valuable tool in carrying out their mission for the making their job easier. The point is that it isn't extraordinary for law enforcement to want investigative powers. Sure. Then I'd just circle back to my original point which is there is disagreement over how to keep the public safe. That's the cause of the problem, and we're missing someone who can bridge that communication gap. > If you watch some interviews with Michael Hayden, you'll see him saying just what you want, and I think someone who is a former director of both the CIA and NSA counts as a high level player. I've watched several. The one you cite is actually a bit old. In more recent interviews, he sides even more with Apple. Hayden definitely brings a lot of credibility to Apple's side. Unfortunately he's not in a position to call a meeting between the tech industry and the DOJ plus Obama to settle their differences. In fact, nobody is except the public. The public will ultimately decide this through their voice and vote. If we sit back and do nothing, I imagine we would see backdoor legislation pass quickly. So far, we've been vocal enough to prevent Feinstein's bill from being released. Let's keep it that way and start pushing back against the DOJ. We can play offense too by asking the FBI to share its technique with Apple.
  - maxerickson 11y ago
    It's not a communication gap. The sides understand each other just fine.
    - studentrob 11y ago
      The FBI brought this to court and demanded, quite vehemently in their last brief [1], what they wanted. They chose to bypass the option of further discussing the issue with Apple outside of a court room. Whether you feel Apple or the FBI was being stubborn, that is not good communication. In my opinion, the government needs to make some deposits into its emotional bank account with technologists to make up for the damage it has done. [1] https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160310/18161233865/we-read-dojs-latest-apple-filing-to-highlight-all-misleading-claims.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160310/18161233865/we-re...
zeveb 11y ago
> The oath of the FBI is not to make their own jobs easier. It is to maintain public security. Actually, this is their oath: I [name] do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God. (source: https://www2.fbi.gov/publications/leb/2009/september2009/oath.htm https://www2.fbi.gov/publications/leb/2009/september2009/oat...) Their oath is to the Constitution, and the duties of their office are to investigate federal crimes. The Constitution does not mandate that they share everything they know, but neither does it make it as easy for them to do their jobs as they might like. The Constitution includes certain rights which make it more difficult for them to investigate crimes than they would prefer; it is also silent in some areas which some of us might wish it spoke more loudly on.
- the_ancient 11y ago
  If the Constitution is silent, that means it is prohibited. The constitution is first and foremost a document outlining what the federal government is allowed to do. If it is not listed in the Constitution, then by design the government does not have the authority. I think this has been lost, in part by the inclusion of the bill of rights, which where never intended to be an all inclusive lists of a persons rights.
  - maxerickson 11y ago
    Section. 8. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; That's some pretty broad power that is enumerated right there. to ... provide for the ... general Welfare
    - the_ancient 11y ago
      Actually it is not, unless you take it out of context like you have.... Allow me to Quote Jefferson... "“[T]he laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They [Congress] are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose" Meaning to the founders that section was explicitly about collecting taxes and does not give wide over arching powers to legislate things about the "general welfare" of the population.

maxerickson 11y ago

Ok, sub in that it would be a valuable tool in carrying out their mission for the making their job easier. The point is that it isn't extraordinary for law enforcement to want investigative powers. If you watch some interviews with Michael Hayden, you'll see him saying just what you want, and I think someone who is a former director of both the CIA and NSA counts as a high level player. Autoplay video, but read the text: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/02/21/ex-nsa-chief-backs-apple-iphone-back-doors/80660024/ http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/02/21/ex-nsa-chief-b...

studentrob 11y ago
> Ok, sub in that it would be a valuable tool in carrying out their mission for the making their job easier. The point is that it isn't extraordinary for law enforcement to want investigative powers. Sure. Then I'd just circle back to my original point which is there is disagreement over how to keep the public safe. That's the cause of the problem, and we're missing someone who can bridge that communication gap. > If you watch some interviews with Michael Hayden, you'll see him saying just what you want, and I think someone who is a former director of both the CIA and NSA counts as a high level player. I've watched several. The one you cite is actually a bit old. In more recent interviews, he sides even more with Apple. Hayden definitely brings a lot of credibility to Apple's side. Unfortunately he's not in a position to call a meeting between the tech industry and the DOJ plus Obama to settle their differences. In fact, nobody is except the public. The public will ultimately decide this through their voice and vote. If we sit back and do nothing, I imagine we would see backdoor legislation pass quickly. So far, we've been vocal enough to prevent Feinstein's bill from being released. Let's keep it that way and start pushing back against the DOJ. We can play offense too by asking the FBI to share its technique with Apple.
- maxerickson 11y ago
  It's not a communication gap. The sides understand each other just fine.
  - studentrob 11y ago
    The FBI brought this to court and demanded, quite vehemently in their last brief [1], what they wanted. They chose to bypass the option of further discussing the issue with Apple outside of a court room. Whether you feel Apple or the FBI was being stubborn, that is not good communication. In my opinion, the government needs to make some deposits into its emotional bank account with technologists to make up for the damage it has done. [1] https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160310/18161233865/we-read-dojs-latest-apple-filing-to-highlight-all-misleading-claims.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160310/18161233865/we-re...

zeveb 11y ago

> The oath of the FBI is not to make their own jobs easier. It is to maintain public security. Actually, this is their oath: I [name] do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God. (source: https://www2.fbi.gov/publications/leb/2009/september2009/oath.htm https://www2.fbi.gov/publications/leb/2009/september2009/oat...) Their oath is to the Constitution, and the duties of their office are to investigate federal crimes. The Constitution does not mandate that they share everything they know, but neither does it make it as easy for them to do their jobs as they might like. The Constitution includes certain rights which make it more difficult for them to investigate crimes than they would prefer; it is also silent in some areas which some of us might wish it spoke more loudly on.

the_ancient 11y ago
If the Constitution is silent, that means it is prohibited. The constitution is first and foremost a document outlining what the federal government is allowed to do. If it is not listed in the Constitution, then by design the government does not have the authority. I think this has been lost, in part by the inclusion of the bill of rights, which where never intended to be an all inclusive lists of a persons rights.
- maxerickson 11y ago
  Section. 8. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; That's some pretty broad power that is enumerated right there. to ... provide for the ... general Welfare
  - the_ancient 11y ago
    Actually it is not, unless you take it out of context like you have.... Allow me to Quote Jefferson... "“[T]he laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They [Congress] are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose" Meaning to the founders that section was explicitly about collecting taxes and does not give wide over arching powers to legislate things about the "general welfare" of the population.