9 ms·

The FBI’s Approach to the Cyber Threat

105 points by akerro 10y ago

JumpCrisscross 10y ago
Do we have a better source than the "World Socialist Web Site"?
- mindcrime 10y ago
  http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/08/31/fbi_wants_adult_conversation_about_backdoors/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/08/31/fbi_wants_adult_conv... https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/aug/31/encryption-fbi-building-fresh-case-for-access-to-electronic-devices https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/aug/31/encryptio... http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2469296/fbi-director-james-comey-wants-a-serious-chat-about-encryption http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2469296/fbi-directo... http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/world-news/fbi-wants-adult-conversation-on-device-encryption-james-comey/articleshow/53939817.cms http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/world... http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/293786-comey-targets-2017-for-less-emotional-adult-conversation-on-encryption http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/293786-comey-targets...
  - briandear 10y ago
    So why the heck would someone post a link to the least credible 'news' site to share this story?
    - akerro 10y ago
      Found it on reddit, sorry.
- neffy 10y ago
  This is the actual text of his speech: https://www.fbi.gov/news/speeches/the-fbis-approach-to-the-cyber-threat https://www.fbi.gov/news/speeches/the-fbis-approach-to-the-c... I must admit, I'm impressed the old stalinist organisations are still being funded. That's almost making his point for him.
  - sctb 10y ago
    Thanks. Preferring original sources, we've updated the link from https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2016/09/05/encr-s05.html https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2016/09/05/encr-s05.html.
  - lern_too_spel 10y ago
    It's Trotskyist, not Stalinist, but yes, primary sources are preferred, especially when they're short and self-contained as in this case.
    - neffy 10y ago
      I stand corrected, thanks. Is there any way to know where they're getting their funding from? I poked around a little but couldn't find anything.
      - nzp 10y ago
        From the Roosians, who else! They're always on to rob us of our precious bodily fluids.
      - bobwaycott 10y ago
        The WSWS is published/funded by the ICFI, and appears to solicit and accept public donations. Here's what Wikipedia has to say on the ICFI: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Committee_of_the_Fourth_International https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Committee_of_t...
- greenyoda 10y ago
  There have been several articles recently about the FBI's "concern" about encryption. Here's one that got a lot of discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12237868 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12237868
- briandear 10y ago
  I was thinking the same thing. Even a link to an official government site with a transcript of the speech would be helpful. It's very hard to take a Marxist/Leninist site seriously. Kevin Reed wrote the story as a primary account -- given his credentials, I doubt he was in attendance, thus begging the question: what was his source? Zero attribution. I don't even care about the content as much as I care that anything pretending to be journalism ought to at least provide some attribution. Even Breitbart and Rush Limbaugh provide links/soundclips/etc. By the way, I am not necessarily defending Breitbart or Rush.. merely pointing out that even agenda driven reporting and commentary provides some means for verification other than just 'trust me, he really said it!' It is ironic that a Marxist/Leninist website would be worried about privacy and encryption rights. A political philosophy that brought us the NKVD, the KGB and the Stasi.
  - bobwaycott 10y ago
    Your biases are showing themselves to be painfully blinding. The site itself says it's published by the ICFI in its header on every page. And the ICFI is a Trotskyist organization. This is all easily found with 1 click from anywhere on the site, as well as by using your eyes to read the subheading of the main header. Also, the NKVD, KGB, and Stasi are no more brought to us by Marxist philosophy than the NSA, CIA, and FBI are brought to us by liberal democratic philosophy. Surely you can do better than take cheap shots with incorrect philosophical attribution, while still making the point that good journalism ought to include source attribution.
SolarNet 10y ago
And this is the problem with choosing lesser evils.
- jonlucc 10y ago
  The other option is to choose the greater evils, right? There's a choice to be made: pick the lesser or greater evil.
  - SolarNet 10y ago
    No the other option is to pick a good option. Rather than accepting corruption and cronyism.
whorleater 10y ago
> "First, we can reduce vulnerabilities. We in the government can equip you in the private sector to understand actors and cyber criminals and their techniques, their tactics, and their procedures." - From [1] I realize the alphabet soup agencies don't have much communication between each other, but isn't the NSA hoarding vulnerabilities? Doesn't that go against this "let's work together" shtick? > "We have gotten good at minimizing your disruption, minimizing disruption and pain to your employees, and protecting your privacy and your legitimate concerns about competitive advantage. We will not share your data about employees or operations. We will have adult conversations constantly with you to tell you what we’re going to do with the information you give us, so that you can make risk-benefit decisions about what information to give us. We will not allow you to be blindsided, because we understand that if we do that, you’re not going to talk to us anymore...We need to make sure you understand how important it is to your competitive advantage to integrate the FBI into your risk-assessment plan. You spend a lot of time, no matter where your facility is, making sure the fire department has a basic understanding of the layout your building, so that in the event of a disaster they can save lives. I suggest you do the same with respect to your cyber threat and your risk-assessment plan." - From [1] This is absolutely nuts. Assuming they're even true about "minimizing your disruption" - which once they start they'll slam a gag order on you anyways so you can't even cry wolf about their "disruption" - the parallel to the fire department is completely unfit. The FBI's interests are not aligned with yours, he even admits as much in the article! Furthermore, the role of the fire department, in the case of a fire, is to save as many lives as possible. The FBI's role in response to an attack is to not save your data, nor is it to save your business, it's to find and punish the actors responsible. The fire department doesn't go after the arsonist, they're there for a fundamentally different reason. Giving the FBI "backdoor" access is akin to letting the FBI be the judge, jury, and executioner in your case. > "We believe in the FBI that we need a conversation. If at the end of the day the American people say, “You know what, we’re okay with that portion of the room being dark. We’re okay with”—to use one example—“the FBI, in the first 10 months of this year, getting 5,000 devices from state and local law enforcement and asked for assistance in opening them, and in 650 of those devices being unable to open those devices.” That’s criminals not caught, that’s evidence not found, that’s sentences that are far, far shorter for pedophiles and others because judges can’t see the true scope of their activity." - From [1] That could also easily be 650 regular American citizens who've done nothing wrong. The absence of evidence is not evidence, and this argument bears a striking similarity to the "nothing to hide" argument. [1]: https://www.fbi.gov/news/speeches/the-fbis-approach-to-the-cyber-threat https://www.fbi.gov/news/speeches/the-fbis-approach-to-the-c...
jsnathan 10y ago
Just a brief note for those coming late to this thread that this originally pointed to (and made it to the frontpage as) [1], which is a discussion of only the part of this speech by Comey which pertains to encryption and privacy, and which starts with "A brief word, because I can’t resist, to talk about encryption", which you can grep for. A basic summary, not using the same words: They want backdoors, and they propose that still counts as 'strong encryption', only, well, with a backdoor. Also, they intend to make a push for this next year. [1]: https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2016/09/05/encr-s05.html https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2016/09/05/encr-s05.html
gjdjcjdnxnvjd 10y ago
Brought to you by the same agency you know and love who also gave you previous favorites such as "Trying to Make MLK Jr. Commit Suicide" and "Planning to Execute Occupy Protesters With Sniper Teams."
- mrestko 10y ago
  > "Planning to Execute Occupy Protesters With Sniper Teams" One hit on Google to your usage here. Please provide a citation.
  - gjdjcjdnxnvjd 10y ago
    http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2014/03/18/fbi-ordered-to-justify-shielding-of-records-sought-about-alleged-occupy-sniper-plot/ http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2014/03/18/fbi-ordered-to-justify-s... Or for the documents themselves: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3axduuybL0jNUUtUWxUenFzMGM/view https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3axduuybL0jNUUtUWxUenFzMGM...
- alexandercrohde 10y ago
  In case anybody assumes these two accusations are too wild to be true, here are sources: Sources: [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FBI%E2%80%93King_suicide_letter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FBI%E2%80%93King_suicide_lette... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupy_movement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupy_movement [Paragraph #2 Under Lawsuits]
  - lern_too_spel 10y ago
    The FBI uncovered a plot to assassinate OWS leaders in Houston. Claiming that they were planning to do this themselves completely changes the story. http://www.courthousenews.com/2015/02/06/fbi-gets-ok-on-alleged-murder-plot-info-cache.htm http://www.courthousenews.com/2015/02/06/fbi-gets-ok-on-alle...
- Mandatum 10y ago
  I don't believe the leaked document indicated government agents or personnel planned to kill leaders via suppressed sniper fire. You're talking about page 61 of this document I assume? http://www.justiceonline.org/fbi_files_ows http://www.justiceonline.org/fbi_files_ows
Animats 10y ago
None of the threats they mention involve encryption much, not in the sense of the FBI having access to the content. Ransomeware and phishing attacks, which are the high-cost items now, don't need that. Anti-terrorism might, but US terrorism today is a family affair. Since 2010, almost all US terrorism attacks have been by individuals. The Las Vegas shooting, Boston marathon bombing and the San Bernardino massacre were by family members. The Garland, TX shooting was three guys from Phoenix who lived together. In no case was any encrypted communication involved.
corysama 10y ago
> One of my children described to me what our problem is in recruiting. She said, “Dad, the problem is you’re the man.” I thought that was a compliment, so I said, “Thank you, I really appreciate that.” She said, “Dad, I don’t mean that in a good way. I mean you’re the ‘Man.’ Who would want to work for the ‘Man’?” I think she’s right. But I said to her, “You know, if people saw what this ‘Man’ and ‘Woman’ of the FBI was like, and what we do, and the challenges we face, I think they’d want to come work for us.” Given that even after his daughter explained the term to him, he still doesn't know that 'The' is part of the phrase, I'm not sure if The Director of the FBI knows what the phrase 'The Man' means...
- woodman 10y ago
  There is no way that he doesn't know what the phrase means, nothing has ever not happened more than that story. "Never let the truth get in the way of a good story." -- Mark Twain
  - mattkrause 10y ago
    "You/You're the man" is a phrase that's complimentary. That reading would also fit into the conversation as a sort of commiseration. "But...you the man dad, who wouldn't want to work with you?"
    - RileyKyeden 10y ago
      You're thinking of tha man. This is The Man. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Man https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Man
      - mattkrause 10y ago
        (Note that the article also mentions confusion with complimentary sense)
        thaumasiotes 10y ago
corysama 10y ago
It seems to me that be most bang-for-buck way the FBI could counter the cyber threat is to contribute security reviews and patches to popular open-source software. "Get paid full time to do security patches for Open Source" seems like a good recruiting call as well. In a round-about way, this letter indicates that they are doing some of that. But, I'm not clear how much.
- dimino 10y ago
  That's not their role, though. Someone has to be actively tracking and apprehending hacker groups operating within the US. Sure, they can find and help fix holes, but the US needs a government organization tracking cyber threats, and stopping them when they can.
ramblenode 10y ago
The tri-letters seek more and more access to personal data, yet their own transparency worsens and their operations are increasingly classified or confidential, even to members of Congress. We have more reason to be concerned about the dark areas of government than Mr. Comey's "dark room" of civil privacy. Defending civil liberties is an uphill battle because their importance is not as immediately apparent as the security predicament of the day. On the other hand, once the government gains a new mandate and new authority it's rarely willing to relinquish this power once the cause for the mandate has been resolved or the solution demonstrated unworkable. So we should be cautious about granting broad authority to solve today's problems; we'll have to live with the consequences tomorrow and days to come even if it's realized the cure was worse than the disease.
- themartorana 10y ago
  The end game of government is all dark-room. Bills are written in secret by lobbying groups, treaties are negotiated and signed in secret, the TSA can arrest people through secret laws, more and more government lawsuits are in secret, we can withhold prisoners indefinitely in secret, the fact that a secret organization contacted you and demanded secret information is secret. This isn't just TLAs, it's the entirety of government. Some bits and pieces are farther along than others, but it's all heading that way (same with local governments). Edit: did I mention starting/conducting wars through secret re-interpretations of existing laws? Edit 2: did I mention you can be prosecuted with secret evidence you and your lawyer aren't allowed to see?
mrsteveman1 10y ago
Having the director of a law enforcement agency wading so far in to public policy (and in a lot of ways far beyond) seems odd to me, is this typical of the position, historically?
electic 10y ago
All he is doing is helping the "stack" win. With weaker encryption and weaker security it puts the very thing he is trying to protect at further risk. "Victory at the expense of the innocent, is no victory at all." -- King T'Chaka of Wakanda
gragas 10y ago
> The Sony attack was an attack aimed at free expression. It was the act of a bully looking to silence speech in the United States, and around the world, by intimidation and harassment, in that case, of Sony Pictures. What? Can anyone provide me some concrete evidence that that's what the Sony attack was about? In the Wikipedia article on the event, I found this sentence: > This followed a message that several Sony Pictures executives had received via email on the previous Friday, November 21; the message, coming from a group called "God'sApstls" [sic], demanded "monetary compensation" or otherwise, "Sony Pictures will be bombarded as a whole". [1] The key phrase I see here is monetary compensation, not silence of speech in the United States. To me, Comey and the FBI (and of course the NSA, CIA, etc.) have a history of stripping the rights of citizens to protect America. Everything in this speech leads me to believe that that is continuing to happen. I just hope that the strategic footholds we gain are worth the costs we pay as citizens. 1. Seal, Mark (February 4, 2015). "An Exclusive Look at Sony's Hacking Saga". Vanity Fair. Retrieved February 4, 2015.
- lern_too_spel 10y ago
  An email to the Sony Pictures from the GoP said it was about The Interview, which makes sense. It was the only movie that GoP obtained that they didn't release. http://money.cnn.com/2014/12/19/media/insde-sony-hack-interview/index.html http://money.cnn.com/2014/12/19/media/insde-sony-hack-interv...
faunzy 10y ago
> We are not to bean bags and granola and a lot of white boards yet. But we’re working very hard at marching in that direction https://cdn.meme.am/instances/500x/71522909.jpg https://cdn.meme.am/instances/500x/71522909.jpg
wtbob 10y ago
> Even our memories are not absolutely private in the United States. Even our communications with our spouses, with our lawyers, with our clergy, with our medical professionals are not absolutely private. A judge in certain circumstances can order all of us to testify about what we saw or remembered or heard. And that's a problem. Communications with spouses, lawyers, clergy and physicians ought to be absolutely privileged. The disadvantages of doing so are outweighed by the advantages. Frankly, I don't think anyone should be compelled to give testimony for the prosecution (I am okay with the defense being able to compel testimony). If someone has knowledge of a crime, but disagrees that it should be a crime, he should be free to keep his mouth shut. > It is seductive when I hear someone say, “Absolute privacy is the paramount value. Our devices are designed to ensure that privacy is absolute in America.” Then, I stop and I step back and I realize, “You know, we’ve actually never lived that way. That is a different way to live.” It's a better way to live. > That’s criminals not caught, that’s evidence not found, that’s sentences that are far, far shorter for pedophiles and others because judges can’t see the true scope of their activity. That is a price to pay, but it is IMHO worth it, Those of us who support strong encryption shouldn't be disingenuous and deny that it exists; rather, we should be forthright about it. Frankly, strong encryption is out of the bag. You can roll a secure cypher by hashing a key with 0, then 1, then 2, and XORing that stream with your message.
- themartorana 10y ago
  What's most frustrating is that every person that pushes for further intrusions and further dismantling of privacy and liberty hold themselves exempt for any number of reasons. I'd also like to know where they draw the line? What's too invasive? At what point are they willing to (cringe) let pedophiles get lighter sentences, because a privacy intrusion is too extreme? As we march ever forward down the road of always-on blanket surveillance, we might need to start asking this question so we know exactly how far elected leaders are willing to go (and if they believe themselves to be exempt from such intrusions).
kakarot 10y ago
This is one of the most disgusting and hypocritical things I've ever read. The level of doublespeak, fear-mongering and appeal to emotion is insane.

105 points by akerro 10y ago

JumpCrisscross 10y ago

Do we have a better source than the "World Socialist Web Site"?

mindcrime 10y ago
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/08/31/fbi_wants_adult_conversation_about_backdoors/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/08/31/fbi_wants_adult_conv... https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/aug/31/encryption-fbi-building-fresh-case-for-access-to-electronic-devices https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/aug/31/encryptio... http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2469296/fbi-director-james-comey-wants-a-serious-chat-about-encryption http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2469296/fbi-directo... http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/world-news/fbi-wants-adult-conversation-on-device-encryption-james-comey/articleshow/53939817.cms http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/world... http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/293786-comey-targets-2017-for-less-emotional-adult-conversation-on-encryption http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/293786-comey-targets...
- briandear 10y ago
  So why the heck would someone post a link to the least credible 'news' site to share this story?
  - akerro 10y ago
    Found it on reddit, sorry.
neffy 10y ago
This is the actual text of his speech: https://www.fbi.gov/news/speeches/the-fbis-approach-to-the-cyber-threat https://www.fbi.gov/news/speeches/the-fbis-approach-to-the-c... I must admit, I'm impressed the old stalinist organisations are still being funded. That's almost making his point for him.
- sctb 10y ago
  Thanks. Preferring original sources, we've updated the link from https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2016/09/05/encr-s05.html https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2016/09/05/encr-s05.html.
- lern_too_spel 10y ago
  It's Trotskyist, not Stalinist, but yes, primary sources are preferred, especially when they're short and self-contained as in this case.
  - neffy 10y ago
    I stand corrected, thanks. Is there any way to know where they're getting their funding from? I poked around a little but couldn't find anything.
    - nzp 10y ago
      From the Roosians, who else! They're always on to rob us of our precious bodily fluids.
    - bobwaycott 10y ago
      The WSWS is published/funded by the ICFI, and appears to solicit and accept public donations. Here's what Wikipedia has to say on the ICFI: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Committee_of_the_Fourth_International https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Committee_of_t...
greenyoda 10y ago
There have been several articles recently about the FBI's "concern" about encryption. Here's one that got a lot of discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12237868 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12237868
briandear 10y ago
I was thinking the same thing. Even a link to an official government site with a transcript of the speech would be helpful. It's very hard to take a Marxist/Leninist site seriously. Kevin Reed wrote the story as a primary account -- given his credentials, I doubt he was in attendance, thus begging the question: what was his source? Zero attribution. I don't even care about the content as much as I care that anything pretending to be journalism ought to at least provide some attribution. Even Breitbart and Rush Limbaugh provide links/soundclips/etc. By the way, I am not necessarily defending Breitbart or Rush.. merely pointing out that even agenda driven reporting and commentary provides some means for verification other than just 'trust me, he really said it!' It is ironic that a Marxist/Leninist website would be worried about privacy and encryption rights. A political philosophy that brought us the NKVD, the KGB and the Stasi.
- bobwaycott 10y ago
  Your biases are showing themselves to be painfully blinding. The site itself says it's published by the ICFI in its header on every page. And the ICFI is a Trotskyist organization. This is all easily found with 1 click from anywhere on the site, as well as by using your eyes to read the subheading of the main header. Also, the NKVD, KGB, and Stasi are no more brought to us by Marxist philosophy than the NSA, CIA, and FBI are brought to us by liberal democratic philosophy. Surely you can do better than take cheap shots with incorrect philosophical attribution, while still making the point that good journalism ought to include source attribution.

SolarNet 10y ago

And this is the problem with choosing lesser evils.

jonlucc 10y ago
The other option is to choose the greater evils, right? There's a choice to be made: pick the lesser or greater evil.
- SolarNet 10y ago
  No the other option is to pick a good option. Rather than accepting corruption and cronyism.

whorleater 10y ago

> "First, we can reduce vulnerabilities. We in the government can equip you in the private sector to understand actors and cyber criminals and their techniques, their tactics, and their procedures." - From [1] I realize the alphabet soup agencies don't have much communication between each other, but isn't the NSA hoarding vulnerabilities? Doesn't that go against this "let's work together" shtick? > "We have gotten good at minimizing your disruption, minimizing disruption and pain to your employees, and protecting your privacy and your legitimate concerns about competitive advantage. We will not share your data about employees or operations. We will have adult conversations constantly with you to tell you what we’re going to do with the information you give us, so that you can make risk-benefit decisions about what information to give us. We will not allow you to be blindsided, because we understand that if we do that, you’re not going to talk to us anymore...We need to make sure you understand how important it is to your competitive advantage to integrate the FBI into your risk-assessment plan. You spend a lot of time, no matter where your facility is, making sure the fire department has a basic understanding of the layout your building, so that in the event of a disaster they can save lives. I suggest you do the same with respect to your cyber threat and your risk-assessment plan." - From [1] This is absolutely nuts. Assuming they're even true about "minimizing your disruption" - which once they start they'll slam a gag order on you anyways so you can't even cry wolf about their "disruption" - the parallel to the fire department is completely unfit. The FBI's interests are not aligned with yours, he even admits as much in the article! Furthermore, the role of the fire department, in the case of a fire, is to save as many lives as possible. The FBI's role in response to an attack is to not save your data, nor is it to save your business, it's to find and punish the actors responsible. The fire department doesn't go after the arsonist, they're there for a fundamentally different reason. Giving the FBI "backdoor" access is akin to letting the FBI be the judge, jury, and executioner in your case. > "We believe in the FBI that we need a conversation. If at the end of the day the American people say, “You know what, we’re okay with that portion of the room being dark. We’re okay with”—to use one example—“the FBI, in the first 10 months of this year, getting 5,000 devices from state and local law enforcement and asked for assistance in opening them, and in 650 of those devices being unable to open those devices.” That’s criminals not caught, that’s evidence not found, that’s sentences that are far, far shorter for pedophiles and others because judges can’t see the true scope of their activity." - From [1] That could also easily be 650 regular American citizens who've done nothing wrong. The absence of evidence is not evidence, and this argument bears a striking similarity to the "nothing to hide" argument. [1]: https://www.fbi.gov/news/speeches/the-fbis-approach-to-the-cyber-threat https://www.fbi.gov/news/speeches/the-fbis-approach-to-the-c...

jsnathan 10y ago

Just a brief note for those coming late to this thread that this originally pointed to (and made it to the frontpage as) [1], which is a discussion of only the part of this speech by Comey which pertains to encryption and privacy, and which starts with "A brief word, because I can’t resist, to talk about encryption", which you can grep for. A basic summary, not using the same words: They want backdoors, and they propose that still counts as 'strong encryption', only, well, with a backdoor. Also, they intend to make a push for this next year. [1]: https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2016/09/05/encr-s05.html https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2016/09/05/encr-s05.html

gjdjcjdnxnvjd 10y ago

Brought to you by the same agency you know and love who also gave you previous favorites such as "Trying to Make MLK Jr. Commit Suicide" and "Planning to Execute Occupy Protesters With Sniper Teams."

mrestko 10y ago
> "Planning to Execute Occupy Protesters With Sniper Teams" One hit on Google to your usage here. Please provide a citation.
- gjdjcjdnxnvjd 10y ago
  http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2014/03/18/fbi-ordered-to-justify-shielding-of-records-sought-about-alleged-occupy-sniper-plot/ http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2014/03/18/fbi-ordered-to-justify-s... Or for the documents themselves: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3axduuybL0jNUUtUWxUenFzMGM/view https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3axduuybL0jNUUtUWxUenFzMGM...
alexandercrohde 10y ago
In case anybody assumes these two accusations are too wild to be true, here are sources: Sources: [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FBI%E2%80%93King_suicide_letter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FBI%E2%80%93King_suicide_lette... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupy_movement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupy_movement [Paragraph #2 Under Lawsuits]
- lern_too_spel 10y ago
  The FBI uncovered a plot to assassinate OWS leaders in Houston. Claiming that they were planning to do this themselves completely changes the story. http://www.courthousenews.com/2015/02/06/fbi-gets-ok-on-alleged-murder-plot-info-cache.htm http://www.courthousenews.com/2015/02/06/fbi-gets-ok-on-alle...
Mandatum 10y ago
I don't believe the leaked document indicated government agents or personnel planned to kill leaders via suppressed sniper fire. You're talking about page 61 of this document I assume? http://www.justiceonline.org/fbi_files_ows http://www.justiceonline.org/fbi_files_ows

Animats 10y ago

None of the threats they mention involve encryption much, not in the sense of the FBI having access to the content. Ransomeware and phishing attacks, which are the high-cost items now, don't need that. Anti-terrorism might, but US terrorism today is a family affair. Since 2010, almost all US terrorism attacks have been by individuals. The Las Vegas shooting, Boston marathon bombing and the San Bernardino massacre were by family members. The Garland, TX shooting was three guys from Phoenix who lived together. In no case was any encrypted communication involved.

corysama 10y ago

> One of my children described to me what our problem is in recruiting. She said, “Dad, the problem is you’re the man.” I thought that was a compliment, so I said, “Thank you, I really appreciate that.” She said, “Dad, I don’t mean that in a good way. I mean you’re the ‘Man.’ Who would want to work for the ‘Man’?” I think she’s right. But I said to her, “You know, if people saw what this ‘Man’ and ‘Woman’ of the FBI was like, and what we do, and the challenges we face, I think they’d want to come work for us.” Given that even after his daughter explained the term to him, he still doesn't know that 'The' is part of the phrase, I'm not sure if The Director of the FBI knows what the phrase 'The Man' means...

woodman 10y ago
There is no way that he doesn't know what the phrase means, nothing has ever not happened more than that story. "Never let the truth get in the way of a good story." -- Mark Twain
- mattkrause 10y ago
  "You/You're the man" is a phrase that's complimentary. That reading would also fit into the conversation as a sort of commiseration. "But...you the man dad, who wouldn't want to work with you?"
  - RileyKyeden 10y ago
    You're thinking of tha man. This is The Man. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Man https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Man
    - mattkrause 10y ago
      (Note that the article also mentions confusion with complimentary sense)
      - thaumasiotes 10y ago

corysama 10y ago

It seems to me that be most bang-for-buck way the FBI could counter the cyber threat is to contribute security reviews and patches to popular open-source software. "Get paid full time to do security patches for Open Source" seems like a good recruiting call as well. In a round-about way, this letter indicates that they are doing some of that. But, I'm not clear how much.

dimino 10y ago
That's not their role, though. Someone has to be actively tracking and apprehending hacker groups operating within the US. Sure, they can find and help fix holes, but the US needs a government organization tracking cyber threats, and stopping them when they can.

ramblenode 10y ago

The tri-letters seek more and more access to personal data, yet their own transparency worsens and their operations are increasingly classified or confidential, even to members of Congress. We have more reason to be concerned about the dark areas of government than Mr. Comey's "dark room" of civil privacy. Defending civil liberties is an uphill battle because their importance is not as immediately apparent as the security predicament of the day. On the other hand, once the government gains a new mandate and new authority it's rarely willing to relinquish this power once the cause for the mandate has been resolved or the solution demonstrated unworkable. So we should be cautious about granting broad authority to solve today's problems; we'll have to live with the consequences tomorrow and days to come even if it's realized the cure was worse than the disease.

themartorana 10y ago
The end game of government is all dark-room. Bills are written in secret by lobbying groups, treaties are negotiated and signed in secret, the TSA can arrest people through secret laws, more and more government lawsuits are in secret, we can withhold prisoners indefinitely in secret, the fact that a secret organization contacted you and demanded secret information is secret. This isn't just TLAs, it's the entirety of government. Some bits and pieces are farther along than others, but it's all heading that way (same with local governments). Edit: did I mention starting/conducting wars through secret re-interpretations of existing laws? Edit 2: did I mention you can be prosecuted with secret evidence you and your lawyer aren't allowed to see?

mrsteveman1 10y ago

Having the director of a law enforcement agency wading so far in to public policy (and in a lot of ways far beyond) seems odd to me, is this typical of the position, historically?

electic 10y ago

All he is doing is helping the "stack" win. With weaker encryption and weaker security it puts the very thing he is trying to protect at further risk. "Victory at the expense of the innocent, is no victory at all." -- King T'Chaka of Wakanda

gragas 10y ago

> The Sony attack was an attack aimed at free expression. It was the act of a bully looking to silence speech in the United States, and around the world, by intimidation and harassment, in that case, of Sony Pictures. What? Can anyone provide me some concrete evidence that that's what the Sony attack was about? In the Wikipedia article on the event, I found this sentence: > This followed a message that several Sony Pictures executives had received via email on the previous Friday, November 21; the message, coming from a group called "God'sApstls" [sic], demanded "monetary compensation" or otherwise, "Sony Pictures will be bombarded as a whole". [1] The key phrase I see here is monetary compensation, not silence of speech in the United States. To me, Comey and the FBI (and of course the NSA, CIA, etc.) have a history of stripping the rights of citizens to protect America. Everything in this speech leads me to believe that that is continuing to happen. I just hope that the strategic footholds we gain are worth the costs we pay as citizens. 1. Seal, Mark (February 4, 2015). "An Exclusive Look at Sony's Hacking Saga". Vanity Fair. Retrieved February 4, 2015.

lern_too_spel 10y ago
An email to the Sony Pictures from the GoP said it was about The Interview, which makes sense. It was the only movie that GoP obtained that they didn't release. http://money.cnn.com/2014/12/19/media/insde-sony-hack-interview/index.html http://money.cnn.com/2014/12/19/media/insde-sony-hack-interv...

faunzy 10y ago

> We are not to bean bags and granola and a lot of white boards yet. But we’re working very hard at marching in that direction https://cdn.meme.am/instances/500x/71522909.jpg https://cdn.meme.am/instances/500x/71522909.jpg

wtbob 10y ago

> Even our memories are not absolutely private in the United States. Even our communications with our spouses, with our lawyers, with our clergy, with our medical professionals are not absolutely private. A judge in certain circumstances can order all of us to testify about what we saw or remembered or heard. And that's a problem. Communications with spouses, lawyers, clergy and physicians ought to be absolutely privileged. The disadvantages of doing so are outweighed by the advantages. Frankly, I don't think anyone should be compelled to give testimony for the prosecution (I am okay with the defense being able to compel testimony). If someone has knowledge of a crime, but disagrees that it should be a crime, he should be free to keep his mouth shut. > It is seductive when I hear someone say, “Absolute privacy is the paramount value. Our devices are designed to ensure that privacy is absolute in America.” Then, I stop and I step back and I realize, “You know, we’ve actually never lived that way. That is a different way to live.” It's a better way to live. > That’s criminals not caught, that’s evidence not found, that’s sentences that are far, far shorter for pedophiles and others because judges can’t see the true scope of their activity. That is a price to pay, but it is IMHO worth it, Those of us who support strong encryption shouldn't be disingenuous and deny that it exists; rather, we should be forthright about it. Frankly, strong encryption is out of the bag. You can roll a secure cypher by hashing a key with 0, then 1, then 2, and XORing that stream with your message.

themartorana 10y ago
What's most frustrating is that every person that pushes for further intrusions and further dismantling of privacy and liberty hold themselves exempt for any number of reasons. I'd also like to know where they draw the line? What's too invasive? At what point are they willing to (cringe) let pedophiles get lighter sentences, because a privacy intrusion is too extreme? As we march ever forward down the road of always-on blanket surveillance, we might need to start asking this question so we know exactly how far elected leaders are willing to go (and if they believe themselves to be exempt from such intrusions).

kakarot 10y ago

This is one of the most disgusting and hypocritical things I've ever read. The level of doublespeak, fear-mongering and appeal to emotion is insane.