4 ms·

tl;dr: Comey: "The Bill of Rights is inconvenient. We'd like to wipe our backside with it, and we need Congress to make that legal. Support such a law because $

tl;dr: Comey: "The Bill of Rights is inconvenient. We'd like to wipe our backside with it, and we need Congress to make that legal. Support such a law because $BOGEYMAN. Thank you, citizen."

ggreer 12y ago
It's easy to demonize and misconstrue people, but it's vastly more useful to actually understand them. In all likelihood, James Comey is genuinely worried about public safety. Think about this from his point of view. As head of the FBI, his days are inundated with threats. Most of them are bunk, but a few might be credible. He worries his subordinates don't have the tools necessary to adequately follow-up on everything. If only they could tap network devices like phones (and really, there's no practical difference between the two these days), they'd be so much more effective. "Yes," he thinks, "there are privacy concerns, but we're the good guys. We could follow-up on so many more threats. We could keep everyone safer." Now think about what happens if there's a successful attack. Mr. Comey is from Yonkers, so he almost certainly went to some funerals after September 11th. Think of how a repeat of that haunts him. He'd feel personally responsible for failing the American people. Lives lost, families broken, because of him. So he asks Congress for help. Maybe he punches-up the rhetoric a little to make his case more compelling. That's a much more likely version of what's going through his head. He may be mistaken, but he's not malicious.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- sounds 12y ago
  While it is convenient to pull out the quote "never attribute to malice..." the malice here has both mens rea and solid evidence. This is not about fighting criminals, judicial process, or even vague threats to national security. Malice, n: the intention or desire to do evil. Ill will. I will list a few, but I'm not going to debate the point or google the sources on these. If you don't see the malice here or want to disagree on minutiae, please do it briefly and then let's let it drop. It seems like malice plain and simple when: 1. Keith Alexander lies to Congress about whether the NSA routinely intercepts totally domestic communications (bear in mind the NSA's stated charter). 2. The CIA deletes their records after it comes to light that they captured surveillance of Congress when Congress started an inquiry into the CIA for illegally putting surveillance on Congress. 3. James Woolsey publicly declares Snowden should be hanged for treason. 4. David Miranda is held inhumanely for 9 hours in Heathrow. He has never been implicated in the Snowden investigation or charged with anything else, for that matter. 5. The Guardian chooses to physically destroy their copies of Snowden's files when pressured by GCHQ. They can at least film the process. 6. NSA programs deliberately weaken encryption, subvert standard committees, infiltrate US businesses, sabotage hardware shipped through the US, and record all traffic at major internet switching points around globe. The stated intent is surveillance completely at odds with all major recognized statements of inalienable human rights. Malice.
  - ggreer 12y ago
    A note to those reading this exchange: sounds is using the tactic of replying with a list of tangentially-related, denotationally true but connotationally not-so-accurate points. If I don't spend an inordinate amount of time responding to every one of them, he can say, "Ah-ha, but you didn't address points 2, 4 and 5." I don't like taking things meta, but it's impossible to engage in a debate when confronted with such a mess. The sad thing is unless you've been on the receiving end of this tactic before, it usually works. Yes, all kinds of bad things have been done by the NSA, CIA, and GCHQ. But I (and the article) was talking about one man: James Comey, and one organization: the FBI. I don't see either mentioned in your reply.
    - xnull2guest 12y ago
      I think maybe you are both right. You can have individuals who think they are doing good working within the confines of a body that is sometimes and in some capacity malignant. Law enforcement as a practice is ultimately the act of treating your own citizens as enemies. I think for the most part we have extremely well intentioned people in those roles. I don't think Hoover had outwardly malicious intentions - for example - but I do think an agency with an agenda to disrupt civilians that have political ideas that run contrary to policy goals or administrative priorities, even if its composed of nuns, will inevitably be malicious.
- rtpg 12y ago
  pleasently surprised to hear something like this on HN. I am not super convinced that public servants are "out to get us", but probably woefully uninformed and living in a certain bubble. Just like how we're in a bubble filled with images of totalitarianism that makes us react so violently to comments like this. I'm always reminded of Adam Curtis' blog post on the history of MI5(http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/posts/BUGGER http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/posts/BUGGER). An absolute must-read. Basically MI5 was lead by people in an alternate reality to what was already happening. Their objectives were not malicious in itself, but their worldview was so insane that what they ended up doing was pretty head-scratching. Here, the FBI spends their time running after kidnappers or something, and suddenly they can't get text messages from the kid's phone (which is probably the best lead in these sorts of situations), it could be extremely frustrating. Just by the way, kidnappings are a very real thing that happen extremely often in the US (250000 a year in the USA). Only 115 are of the "stranger kidnapping a kid" variety, most are people they know, so of course the police would like to see the text messages. "Think of the children" is a tired trope, and I don't think that it's a real argument, but the FBI works on a lot of these cases, and this will hinder their job. It's normal for them to speak up about it. Doesn't mean they should get access though.
- adventured 12y ago
  Seeking to directly and intentionally harm the rights of the very citizens you're supposed to be protecting, makes you malicious. It is that simple. It doesn't matter whether Comey is a nice guy or whether he thinks he is doing right. What matters is what the guy actually does. His actions make him malicious. Putin might be insane or delusional and think what he does benefits the Russian people - that doesn't mean he isn't malicious.
- thaumasiotes 12y ago
  Remember the corollary, sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice. If he's genuinely worried about public safety and as a result thinks this is a good idea, he should be demonized and driven out of his job, and any related job. If he believes that certain things should be allowed for the good guys but not for the bad guys, he is the bad guys. But all that is beside the point. I don't live in James Comey's mind, and its internal state is totally irrelevant to me. What he does matters. If he's doing it for what he thinks are good reasons, that just means he's evil and he has terrible judgment -- which doesn't seem like much of a step up from "he's evil".
- venomsnake 12y ago
  I am sure that whether he was malicious or mistaken will be interesting for historians while studying "The slide of the US into police state in the late 2020s", but not for the rest. The US currently supports intelligence, domestic and external security forces that are totally out of line with any credible treat. With too broad power. A lot of it in the dark or shade. That concentration of power and force makes me feel uncomfortable.
r0s 12y ago
Either you believe police should have access (with warrants) to anyone's information or not. You can argue all day about warrant-less wiretaps, but that's a red herring. If the law should have power to discover data, denying them the power to do so via poor tools is a half-ass way to hamstring a policy that we agree is necessary. Or we don't agree, and you want to bar the law from private information at any cost.
- xnull2guest 12y ago
  It isn't that simple. Your dichotomy is false. The reality is that police and federal law enforcement are able to acquire private information using other means including knocking on doors, physically bugging devices and people, hacking into devices and other ground work. The law can have the power to discover data, but this power can be separate from compulsion statutes that force large corporations to surveil, store and copy customer data as a default. What if there was a law that required you as a private citizen to spy on other private citizens? You would have to keep files on people, but you would only need to give them up if a search warrant or other court order was given to you. Wouldn't that be wrong? The only difference in this case is that Apple and Google and whomever else have filed to be incorporated. Yes law enforcement should be able to access individual's data. No, it doesn't have to come in the form of a compulsory digital surveillance apparatus.
  - r0s 12y ago
    > What if there was a law that required you as a private citizen to spy on other private citizens? I really don't see how any of this is incompatible with the checks of warranted search. Compulsory digital surveillance sucks, don't do it, but if it's required else the data is lost forever then it's required. (if you agree with the legal access to private data) This is not complicated, you don't need to make it so.
    - xnull2guest 12y ago
      I'm not sure I get what you mean. Can you confirm? What I think you are saying: it would be okay to force private citizens to keep tabs on each other so long as the warrant/subpoena and court system were trustworthy and in working order (i.e. in the case where there are very few abuses and mistakes by law enforcement).

tl;dr: Comey: "The Bill of Rights is inconvenient. We'd like to wipe our backside with it, and we need Congress to make that legal. Support such a law because $BOGEYMAN. Thank you, citizen."

ggreer 12y ago

It's easy to demonize and misconstrue people, but it's vastly more useful to actually understand them. In all likelihood, James Comey is genuinely worried about public safety. Think about this from his point of view. As head of the FBI, his days are inundated with threats. Most of them are bunk, but a few might be credible. He worries his subordinates don't have the tools necessary to adequately follow-up on everything. If only they could tap network devices like phones (and really, there's no practical difference between the two these days), they'd be so much more effective. "Yes," he thinks, "there are privacy concerns, but we're the good guys. We could follow-up on so many more threats. We could keep everyone safer." Now think about what happens if there's a successful attack. Mr. Comey is from Yonkers, so he almost certainly went to some funerals after September 11th. Think of how a repeat of that haunts him. He'd feel personally responsible for failing the American people. Lives lost, families broken, because of him. So he asks Congress for help. Maybe he punches-up the rhetoric a little to make his case more compelling. That's a much more likely version of what's going through his head. He may be mistaken, but he's not malicious.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
sounds 12y ago
While it is convenient to pull out the quote "never attribute to malice..." the malice here has both mens rea and solid evidence. This is not about fighting criminals, judicial process, or even vague threats to national security. Malice, n: the intention or desire to do evil. Ill will. I will list a few, but I'm not going to debate the point or google the sources on these. If you don't see the malice here or want to disagree on minutiae, please do it briefly and then let's let it drop. It seems like malice plain and simple when: 1. Keith Alexander lies to Congress about whether the NSA routinely intercepts totally domestic communications (bear in mind the NSA's stated charter). 2. The CIA deletes their records after it comes to light that they captured surveillance of Congress when Congress started an inquiry into the CIA for illegally putting surveillance on Congress. 3. James Woolsey publicly declares Snowden should be hanged for treason. 4. David Miranda is held inhumanely for 9 hours in Heathrow. He has never been implicated in the Snowden investigation or charged with anything else, for that matter. 5. The Guardian chooses to physically destroy their copies of Snowden's files when pressured by GCHQ. They can at least film the process. 6. NSA programs deliberately weaken encryption, subvert standard committees, infiltrate US businesses, sabotage hardware shipped through the US, and record all traffic at major internet switching points around globe. The stated intent is surveillance completely at odds with all major recognized statements of inalienable human rights. Malice.
- ggreer 12y ago
  A note to those reading this exchange: sounds is using the tactic of replying with a list of tangentially-related, denotationally true but connotationally not-so-accurate points. If I don't spend an inordinate amount of time responding to every one of them, he can say, "Ah-ha, but you didn't address points 2, 4 and 5." I don't like taking things meta, but it's impossible to engage in a debate when confronted with such a mess. The sad thing is unless you've been on the receiving end of this tactic before, it usually works. Yes, all kinds of bad things have been done by the NSA, CIA, and GCHQ. But I (and the article) was talking about one man: James Comey, and one organization: the FBI. I don't see either mentioned in your reply.
  - xnull2guest 12y ago
    I think maybe you are both right. You can have individuals who think they are doing good working within the confines of a body that is sometimes and in some capacity malignant. Law enforcement as a practice is ultimately the act of treating your own citizens as enemies. I think for the most part we have extremely well intentioned people in those roles. I don't think Hoover had outwardly malicious intentions - for example - but I do think an agency with an agenda to disrupt civilians that have political ideas that run contrary to policy goals or administrative priorities, even if its composed of nuns, will inevitably be malicious.
rtpg 12y ago
pleasently surprised to hear something like this on HN. I am not super convinced that public servants are "out to get us", but probably woefully uninformed and living in a certain bubble. Just like how we're in a bubble filled with images of totalitarianism that makes us react so violently to comments like this. I'm always reminded of Adam Curtis' blog post on the history of MI5(http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/posts/BUGGER http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/posts/BUGGER). An absolute must-read. Basically MI5 was lead by people in an alternate reality to what was already happening. Their objectives were not malicious in itself, but their worldview was so insane that what they ended up doing was pretty head-scratching. Here, the FBI spends their time running after kidnappers or something, and suddenly they can't get text messages from the kid's phone (which is probably the best lead in these sorts of situations), it could be extremely frustrating. Just by the way, kidnappings are a very real thing that happen extremely often in the US (250000 a year in the USA). Only 115 are of the "stranger kidnapping a kid" variety, most are people they know, so of course the police would like to see the text messages. "Think of the children" is a tired trope, and I don't think that it's a real argument, but the FBI works on a lot of these cases, and this will hinder their job. It's normal for them to speak up about it. Doesn't mean they should get access though.
adventured 12y ago
Seeking to directly and intentionally harm the rights of the very citizens you're supposed to be protecting, makes you malicious. It is that simple. It doesn't matter whether Comey is a nice guy or whether he thinks he is doing right. What matters is what the guy actually does. His actions make him malicious. Putin might be insane or delusional and think what he does benefits the Russian people - that doesn't mean he isn't malicious.
thaumasiotes 12y ago
Remember the corollary, sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice. If he's genuinely worried about public safety and as a result thinks this is a good idea, he should be demonized and driven out of his job, and any related job. If he believes that certain things should be allowed for the good guys but not for the bad guys, he is the bad guys. But all that is beside the point. I don't live in James Comey's mind, and its internal state is totally irrelevant to me. What he does matters. If he's doing it for what he thinks are good reasons, that just means he's evil and he has terrible judgment -- which doesn't seem like much of a step up from "he's evil".
venomsnake 12y ago
I am sure that whether he was malicious or mistaken will be interesting for historians while studying "The slide of the US into police state in the late 2020s", but not for the rest. The US currently supports intelligence, domestic and external security forces that are totally out of line with any credible treat. With too broad power. A lot of it in the dark or shade. That concentration of power and force makes me feel uncomfortable.

r0s 12y ago

Either you believe police should have access (with warrants) to anyone's information or not. You can argue all day about warrant-less wiretaps, but that's a red herring. If the law should have power to discover data, denying them the power to do so via poor tools is a half-ass way to hamstring a policy that we agree is necessary. Or we don't agree, and you want to bar the law from private information at any cost.

xnull2guest 12y ago
It isn't that simple. Your dichotomy is false. The reality is that police and federal law enforcement are able to acquire private information using other means including knocking on doors, physically bugging devices and people, hacking into devices and other ground work. The law can have the power to discover data, but this power can be separate from compulsion statutes that force large corporations to surveil, store and copy customer data as a default. What if there was a law that required you as a private citizen to spy on other private citizens? You would have to keep files on people, but you would only need to give them up if a search warrant or other court order was given to you. Wouldn't that be wrong? The only difference in this case is that Apple and Google and whomever else have filed to be incorporated. Yes law enforcement should be able to access individual's data. No, it doesn't have to come in the form of a compulsory digital surveillance apparatus.
- r0s 12y ago
  > What if there was a law that required you as a private citizen to spy on other private citizens? I really don't see how any of this is incompatible with the checks of warranted search. Compulsory digital surveillance sucks, don't do it, but if it's required else the data is lost forever then it's required. (if you agree with the legal access to private data) This is not complicated, you don't need to make it so.
  - xnull2guest 12y ago
    I'm not sure I get what you mean. Can you confirm? What I think you are saying: it would be okay to force private citizens to keep tabs on each other so long as the warrant/subpoena and court system were trustworthy and in working order (i.e. in the case where there are very few abuses and mistakes by law enforcement).