He's right, but he forgets that we already had the public debate. The passage in 1994 of the Communications Assistance in Law Enforcement (CALEA) act is the result. He doesn't like what to provides him so he wants a do-over.
Sorry, but that's how the system works. We debated it - at great length. And this compromise is what resulted.
fbi unconstitutionally attacks Apple. Apple refuses and adheres to the law. fbi starts talking about 'emotions' after suddenly dropping the case the day before law could proceed.
The fbi needs to be disbanded.
you missed step one FBI waits for case with strong emotional pull.
Of course, that's what it thought it had with San Bernardino. And then was most surprised at the blowback.
And let's not forget the New York case. This lacks the emotional pull - it's about a drug dealer who has already pleaded guilty, but the FBI wants to search his phone for contacts. That request was filed before San Bernardino happened, but Judge Orenstein had recognized that an ex party decision, without giving Apple an opportunity to be heard, was inappropriate. So he ordered both sides to present briefs and oral arguments.
Then San Bernardino happened. Any FBI case manager with an ounce of sense would have withdrawn the NY request, knowing that it was already being challenged. But it didn't, and Judge Orenstein's well-reasoned denial of the request is the result. So FBI now is making a double-or-nothing play by appealing the decision, hoping that it will be overturned.
"emotion around that issue was not productive." Emotion is all we have left. Common citizens have no way to challenge anything our government is doing, even through the ballot box, so all we can do is scream at the top of our lungs that this is wrong. Maybe, just maybe someone high enough will be listening and do something about it. Comey is obviously mentally and emotionally separated from anything going on outside his current task. His blinders are on and nothing will stop him from reaching his goal. That should be commendable but in this case he's stomping on millions of people's live. If we can believe recent comments from the White House, President Obama is not ready to sign any legislation that's currently in the pipeline that would limit encryption. Maybe he's finally hearing our screaming. Comey thinks it's over but it's not and that's his flaw. The more people hear about this fight the more our leaders will hear our screams for justice. Apple can't quit either, they need to continue the fight until we the people have won. Does the 1994 Communications Assistance in Law Enforcement (CALEA) act go far enough to protect our use of encryption on every device? If not, then we need to make sure everyone understands we need a constitutional amendment that enforces our RIGHT to use encryption without any backdoors. This is what I'm waiting to hear about from someone with enough guts to bring before Congress. Feinstein and Burr are headed in the wrong direction and they haven't heard our screams for justice yet. Who is going to challenge them in Congress and who is going to step up and deliver the amendment we need?
"Comey said the encryption issues brought into play as a result of the court action cannot be resolved by the court system" - such bullshit! The courts are exactly where this should be settled as it is the courts role when it comes to constitutional issues. Based on the moronic bill floating in Congress right now, they are the worst place to go for trying to settle this issue.
Fortunately, even if the pinheads in Congress pass a law that Comey likes, it will still be challenged in the courts for being unconstitutional.
What Director Comey is missing is simple: full encryption for everything, all the time.
Yes, this means that criminals will abuse this to do harm. Even terrorists. The FBI and other agencies will have to rely on the classic police procedures -- suspicious behaviour, legal surveillance, records searches, and so forth -- to detect, prevent, and prosecute crimes within the limits that the Constitution (which is an incredible barrier to easy law enforcement), and this will make their job difficult.
Like, say, the way the free and easy sale of guns makes it easy for criminals -- even terrorists! -- to cause mass destruction. Funny how the FBI would like to see (at least) the Fourth and Fifth Amendments abridged for their convenience, but if we were to suggest that many more crimes stopped and lives saved by eliminating the Second Amendment right to bear arms, I wonder what the FBI's position on that would be?
The FBI (and DOJ) complain that technology makes their jobs harder, but that is a huge lie: they rely on non-rights-violating technology constantly, and it makes their job vastly easier than it was in decades past. Apple -- and other tech companies -- routinely assist law enforcement agencies and provide general and meta-data on a scale that cops of even the 1990s would have been ecstatic to get, and which is generally even more useful than the mostly-junk data you'd find on a typical citizen's smartphone.
Just as we tolerate a certain amount (far too much IMO, but YMMV) of irresponsible gun use (ie, "murder and mass killings") as the "price" of the freedom to own guns, so too must we accept some crime and even terrorism as the "price" of the freedom from a police state encryption gives us.
As Director Comey says, Apple is not the demon here; the DOJ should be placing the blame on it not getting what it wants squarely on the Founding Fathers and the Bill of Rights, which is where the limitations they face really come from. If anyone here is a demon, it would be law enforcement officials who are so focused on preventing crimes at any cost that they think nothing of shredding the foundations of Constitutional law and democracy to create a authoritarian "Minority Report/1984" type dystopia where crime is impossible, and the trains run on time.
What Director Comey is missing is simple: full encryption for everything, all the time.
Yes, this means that criminals will abuse this to do harm. Even terrorists. The FBI and other agencies will have to rely on the classic police procedures -- suspicious behaviour, legal surveillance, records searches, and so forth -- to detect, prevent, and prosecute crimes within the limits that the Constitution (which is an incredible barrier to easy law enforcement), and this will make their job difficult.
Like, say, the way the free and easy sale of guns makes it easy for criminals -- even terrorists! -- to cause mass destruction. Funny how the FBI would like to see (at least) the Fourth and Fifth Amendments abridged for their convenience, but if we were to suggest that many more crimes stopped and lives saved by eliminating the Second Amendment right to bear arms, I wonder what the FBI's position on that would be?
The FBI (and DOJ) complain that technology makes their jobs harder, but that is a huge lie: they rely on non-rights-violating technology constantly, and it makes their job vastly easier than it was in decades past. Apple -- and other tech companies -- routinely assist law enforcement agencies and provide general and meta-data on a scale that cops of even the 1990s would have been ecstatic to get, and which is generally even more useful than the mostly-junk data you'd find on a typical citizen's smartphone.
Just as we tolerate a certain amount (far too much IMO, but YMMV) of irresponsible gun use (ie, "murder and mass killings") as the "price" of the freedom to own guns, so too must we accept some crime and even terrorism as the "price" of the freedom from a police state encryption gives us.
As Director Comey says, Apple is not the demon here; the DOJ should be placing the blame on it not getting what it wants squarely on the Founding Fathers and the Bill of Rights, which is where the limitations they face really come from. If anyone here is a demon, it would be law enforcement officials who are so focused on preventing crimes at any cost that they think nothing of shredding the foundations of Constitutional law and democracy to create a authoritarian "Minority Report/1984" type dystopia where crime is impossible, and the trains run on time.
May seem like an off the wall point to some, but have any of you ever noticed these "power-guys" always look sad? Look at Trump's face for example. His smiles look fake, his arm gestures are forced and over-exaggerated, his mouth mostly turned down and his eyes, unhappy.
Just goes to show no matter how much power you achieve if you go in the wrong direction in this life, no matter how far you go you'll never be happy. You'd wonder why some of these guys can't take a step back and ask: what the fuck am I doing?
An unhappy life is an empty life is a pointless life.
I've noticed, yes. It is what drives their authoritarian attitudes, paranoid behavior, narcissism, and whatever other personality defects they operate under. The FBI was founded by a nutcase. So was the CIA, if I recall correctly. These institutions are founded on fear, uncertainty, doubt, and paranoia. They collect the most authoritarian and paranoid people as their officers and operators.
the pursuit of power is usually antisocial and usually performed by the perpetually dissatisfied. Society tends to be backwards in terms of merit: those who seek power are most often unfit to have it.
From the very beginning when Apple implemented strong encryption, Comey has been upset. For years, the government got away with things of questionable legality. All that changed with Snowden. Comey and other people in the government were livid that they couldn't hide behind secrecy in the name of national security to cover up their actions. They would actually have to start showing some proof. Meanwhile, tech companies started locking up their systems and throwing away the keys.
Comey tried to appeal to emotion. He used the buzzwords-rapists, child pornographers, terrorists, murderers. Then came San Bernardino. Comey thought he had the perfect case. He thought he could use the media to sling mud at Apple, hoping Apple would capitulate for fear of alienating the public and its customer base. We don't know what happened but evidently, the public wasn't overwhelmingly on the FBI's side. For whatever reason, the FBI withdrew the case.
The government has seen limited success in the courts so far. It seems that Comey has turned to Congress only after all of his other options are exhausted. If any of this other tactics had worked, he definitely wouldn't be calling for a legislative solution.
The FBI has also seen limited success in Congress for decades, e.g. the Clipper chip.
Comey is not calling for a legislative solution because he thinks he'll have better luck with Congress. I'm not trying to imply that. What I'm saying is that Comey is changing his tunes only because he didn't get a convincing victory against Apple in the courts or the media. It seems like he's trying to make himself out to be the good guy.
Comments
Sorry, but that's how the system works. We debated it - at great length. And this compromise is what resulted.
Of course, that's what it thought it had with San Bernardino. And then was most surprised at the blowback.
And let's not forget the New York case. This lacks the emotional pull - it's about a drug dealer who has already pleaded guilty, but the FBI wants to search his phone for contacts. That request was filed before San Bernardino happened, but Judge Orenstein had recognized that an ex party decision, without giving Apple an opportunity to be heard, was inappropriate. So he ordered both sides to present briefs and oral arguments.
Then San Bernardino happened. Any FBI case manager with an ounce of sense would have withdrawn the NY request, knowing that it was already being challenged. But it didn't, and Judge Orenstein's well-reasoned denial of the request is the result. So FBI now is making a double-or-nothing play by appealing the decision, hoping that it will be overturned.
Really, really incompetent.
Fortunately, even if the pinheads in Congress pass a law that Comey likes, it will still be challenged in the courts for being unconstitutional.
PERFECTLY SAID!
the pursuit of power is usually antisocial and usually performed by the perpetually dissatisfied. Society tends to be backwards in terms of merit: those who seek power are most often unfit to have it.