5 ms·

FBI chief Comey: “We have never had absolute privacy”

tn13 10y ago
We probably never had a honest FBI chief ever.
- John23832 10y ago
  What are you talking about? This guy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Edgar_Hoover https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Edgar_Hoover Was an upstanding american!!!!
  - tn13 10y ago
    He ran the program to collect fingerprints.
    - John23832 10y ago
      Sorry, forgot the /s
hexane360 10y ago
But we have also never had as powerful instruments as we do now. Photographic, videographic, audiographic and textual evidence all in one device. We need extraordinary privacy because we have extraordinary vunerability. The FBI used to have to go in person to set wiretaps, to steal documents, to access a safe deposit box. Now they can do it from miles away, and despite what Comey implies, they can do it without a warrant. I'd like to imagine a future where citizens would have enough privacy to stage a revolution, and enough freedom of speech to broadcast widely without the government's consent.
- xapata 10y ago
  > We need extraordinary privacy because we have extraordinary vulnerability I don't understand that statement. Do you mean we need a widely defined right to privacy, aggressively enforced, because observation is so easy? I view it the other way. Observation by anyone/everyone is so easy and natural. We should not expect more privacy from law enforcement than we would from any other stranger. More specific to the posted article, it makes sense that a corporation should be able to sell secure encryption and possibly win in the marketplace because users appreciate their privacy. If users turn out to appreciate convenience instead, then they should expect the FBI to have the same capability that the vendor has to look at users' data.
  - beambot 10y ago
    To use an analogy (probably flawed): Any stranger can walk up to my house, break out a window, and steal things from within. This is obviously illegal. By your analogy... because "anyone" could do this, law enforcement should be able to as well? Now s/house/computer/
    - xapata 10y ago
      Just as it would be obviously illegal for a stranger, it would be obviously illegal for law enforcement. I'm confused as to how you could misconstrue that.
      - beambot 10y ago
        I was responding to this: > Observation by anyone/everyone is so easy and natural. We should not expect more privacy from law enforcement than we would from any other stranger. I disagree. I expect law enforcement to pass a more stringent bar -- ie. get a warrant. The same is true for privacy and data collection (IMO). Just because "anyone" can see and record my activities does not mean law enforcement should be permitted to without a warrant that very narrowly defines the duration and start time. (Ie. No mass surveillance.)
        xapata 10y ago
javajosh 10y ago
There is more evidence than ever before in human history. More and more human activity is mediated by and observed by network-connected digital recording equipment, providing what is essentially a distributed cornucopia of evidence - which is conveniently paid for by us! It's quite an exciting time to be in law-enforcement.
Esau 10y ago
And the government has never had omnipotence. Fuck you Comey.
rrggrr 10y ago
Well he's incorrect in that we always had absolute privacy of thought. Its true we're no different from our predecessors who used cyphers, satire and concealment to communicate. It is also depressingly true that we are approaching a turning point in technology where our thoughts - from a purely technical aspect, may not remain private or even be fully our own. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought_identification https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought_identification http://www.nature.com/news/brain-decoding-reading-minds-1.13989 http://www.nature.com/news/brain-decoding-reading-minds-1.13... I would argue this is the reason a bias toward privacy must exist, modeled after the same international conventions that outlaw use of WMD and torture.
- ickwabe 10y ago
  Agreed. There is often a lack of imagination on the part of folks as regards the potential future abuse of privacy invading tech. There will come a day when thoughts can be decoded with ease.
cmdrfred 10y ago
Unless you illegally run an email server as a public offical. Then take your time and delete anything "private", we'll wait.
wyager 10y ago
Well then things are improving!
guest2143 10y ago
The FBI could do a better job of advocating for increasing it scope of powers: "Give us this little change in our access to information, and we will be able to go after Rachel in Card Services." If they went after spam, and fraud, like they do terrorism, people would roll over. :/
teslaberry 10y ago
we've never had 'limited government' that spent under 3.8 trillion dollars a year. you no longer have a legislature , civilian executive (presidency) , or judicial court system capable of restraining the beast. ronald reagan LIED about his intentions or his capabilities but he did not lie about the only succesful tactic; it's time to cut federal spending IN HALF, indefinitely with statutory budget constraints put into the constitution that cannot be violated without a full supermajority of congress and of senate being forced to reauthorize the emergency spending suspension bill on an ANNUAL BASIS. put that in the constitution. it is the only possible thing that can constrain the government at this point because of its simplicity and its 'neutrality' in terms of the idea that general budget guidelines are potentially neutral to any specific agency or lobbying group that might opppose them.

tn13 10y ago

We probably never had a honest FBI chief ever.

John23832 10y ago
What are you talking about? This guy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Edgar_Hoover https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Edgar_Hoover Was an upstanding american!!!!
- tn13 10y ago
  He ran the program to collect fingerprints.
  - John23832 10y ago
    Sorry, forgot the /s

But we have also never had as powerful instruments as we do now. Photographic, videographic, audiographic and textual evidence all in one device. We need extraordinary privacy because we have extraordinary vunerability. The FBI used to have to go in person to set wiretaps, to steal documents, to access a safe deposit box. Now they can do it from miles away, and despite what Comey implies, they can do it without a warrant. I'd like to imagine a future where citizens would have enough privacy to stage a revolution, and enough freedom of speech to broadcast widely without the government's consent.

xapata 10y ago
> We need extraordinary privacy because we have extraordinary vulnerability I don't understand that statement. Do you mean we need a widely defined right to privacy, aggressively enforced, because observation is so easy? I view it the other way. Observation by anyone/everyone is so easy and natural. We should not expect more privacy from law enforcement than we would from any other stranger. More specific to the posted article, it makes sense that a corporation should be able to sell secure encryption and possibly win in the marketplace because users appreciate their privacy. If users turn out to appreciate convenience instead, then they should expect the FBI to have the same capability that the vendor has to look at users' data.
- beambot 10y ago
  To use an analogy (probably flawed): Any stranger can walk up to my house, break out a window, and steal things from within. This is obviously illegal. By your analogy... because "anyone" could do this, law enforcement should be able to as well? Now s/house/computer/
  - xapata 10y ago
    Just as it would be obviously illegal for a stranger, it would be obviously illegal for law enforcement. I'm confused as to how you could misconstrue that.
    - beambot 10y ago
      I was responding to this: > Observation by anyone/everyone is so easy and natural. We should not expect more privacy from law enforcement than we would from any other stranger. I disagree. I expect law enforcement to pass a more stringent bar -- ie. get a warrant. The same is true for privacy and data collection (IMO). Just because "anyone" can see and record my activities does not mean law enforcement should be permitted to without a warrant that very narrowly defines the duration and start time. (Ie. No mass surveillance.)
      - xapata 10y ago

javajosh 10y ago

There is more evidence than ever before in human history. More and more human activity is mediated by and observed by network-connected digital recording equipment, providing what is essentially a distributed cornucopia of evidence - which is conveniently paid for by us! It's quite an exciting time to be in law-enforcement.

Esau 10y ago

And the government has never had omnipotence. Fuck you Comey.

rrggrr 10y ago

Well he's incorrect in that we always had absolute privacy of thought. Its true we're no different from our predecessors who used cyphers, satire and concealment to communicate. It is also depressingly true that we are approaching a turning point in technology where our thoughts - from a purely technical aspect, may not remain private or even be fully our own. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought_identification https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought_identification http://www.nature.com/news/brain-decoding-reading-minds-1.13989 http://www.nature.com/news/brain-decoding-reading-minds-1.13... I would argue this is the reason a bias toward privacy must exist, modeled after the same international conventions that outlaw use of WMD and torture.

ickwabe 10y ago
Agreed. There is often a lack of imagination on the part of folks as regards the potential future abuse of privacy invading tech. There will come a day when thoughts can be decoded with ease.

cmdrfred 10y ago

Unless you illegally run an email server as a public offical. Then take your time and delete anything "private", we'll wait.

wyager 10y ago

Well then things are improving!

guest2143 10y ago

The FBI could do a better job of advocating for increasing it scope of powers: "Give us this little change in our access to information, and we will be able to go after Rachel in Card Services." If they went after spam, and fraud, like they do terrorism, people would roll over. :/

teslaberry 10y ago

we've never had 'limited government' that spent under 3.8 trillion dollars a year. you no longer have a legislature , civilian executive (presidency) , or judicial court system capable of restraining the beast. ronald reagan LIED about his intentions or his capabilities but he did not lie about the only succesful tactic; it's time to cut federal spending IN HALF, indefinitely with statutory budget constraints put into the constitution that cannot be violated without a full supermajority of congress and of senate being forced to reauthorize the emergency spending suspension bill on an ANNUAL BASIS. put that in the constitution. it is the only possible thing that can constrain the government at this point because of its simplicity and its 'neutrality' in terms of the idea that general budget guidelines are potentially neutral to any specific agency or lobbying group that might opppose them.