Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

FBI director Comey backs new Feinstein push for decrypt bill

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 219 posts

Re: FBI director Comey backs new Feinstein push for decrypt bill

#61

Post by throwaway847345 »

grandalf wrote: post #30

From his perspective as the head of the FBI whose job it is to achieve outcomes within the law, of course Comey advocates encryption backdoors. He would likely also advocate allowing the FBI to suspend the bill of rights for any suspect during the duration of an investigation, and he'd quite likely prefer that the FBI be legally allowed to torture suspects if extreme techniques were viewed as likely to result in usef…

> From his perspective as the head of the FBI whose job it is to achieve outcomes within the law, of course Comey advocates encryption backdoors.

Wiretapping and search warrants are long standing and well support ways for law enforcement to investigate among other things organized crime. Just because you know have encryption doesn't mean that has changed. Similar to how the NSA didn't suddenly stop doing signal intelligence just because they allegedly "lost the crypto wars".

> Nobody would reasonably argue that extreme surveillance measures, patriot act, etc., is necessary to stop the vast majority of crimes from occurring, so why is it so easy for seemingly serious/intelligent people to think this nonsense is reasonable?

It's a presumably a "better safe than sorry" and "nobody got fired for choosing more surveillance" kind of a thing.

> Terrorism is a political word to describe political enemies of the state, yet the patriot act and surveillance machinery has been used in enforcement of many other kinds of (less serious) crime.

Terrorism is just the ultimate argument of people in the establishment. Just like encryption enthusiast might have some story about how they are helping dissidents, but are mostly encrypting their warez and mundane e-mails.

Re: FBI director Comey backs new Feinstein push for decrypt bill

#62

Post by Mendenhall »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #55
Mendenhall wrote: post #32

Is there any good information on what has been accomplished through such access etc ? What have they stopped using such methods? I think if they wanted to get anything like this moving forward they need to show results. Not too many trust the government these days. I do not like the idea of "backdoors" but I can see realistic need for such things. I think many are against such things "until" some massive WMD type att…

If it worked, they probably wouldn't tell us (don't want your targets to wise up). And if it didn't work, they probably wouldn't tell us (just in case it might sometime...)

Thats my thinking as well, but I dont think they will change anyones minds if they dont show some sort of results.

Re: FBI director Comey backs new Feinstein push for decrypt bill

#63

Post by gumby »

sillysaurus3 wrote: post #40
grandalf wrote: post #30

From his perspective as the head of the FBI whose job it is to achieve outcomes within the law, of course Comey advocates encryption backdoors. He would likely also advocate allowing the FBI to suspend the bill of rights for any suspect during the duration of an investigation, and he'd quite likely prefer that the FBI be legally allowed to torture suspects if extreme techniques were viewed as likely to result in usef…

Members of our government are so indoctrinated about stopping "terrorism" that they have lost all sense of perspective. In this case, it might be better to assume malice rather than incompetence. In the 1950's it was s/terrorist/communist/, but it was a remarkably effective political tool. We might be in the same situation. But this time, our fates are all linked. Once shipping backdoors becomes mainstream, it might…

> Members of our government are so indoctrinated about stopping "terrorism" that they have lost all sense of perspective.

> In this case, it might be better to assume malice rather than incompetence.

I really want to consider you paranoid, but sadly I strongly agree. This is hardly the first time engineered paranoia has gripped the country, but living through it is horrible.

I was a kid during the mid-to-late Cold War (post "duck and cover") and somehow I was never able to take it seriously. Even when I took classes on strategic deterrence and the like in college I considered them light entertainment I was paying for to give me a break from the serious classes.

Now we have the emperor's new suicide vest.

Re: FBI director Comey backs new Feinstein push for decrypt bill

#64

Post by grandalf »

sillysaurus3 wrote: post #40
grandalf wrote: post #30

From his perspective as the head of the FBI whose job it is to achieve outcomes within the law, of course Comey advocates encryption backdoors. He would likely also advocate allowing the FBI to suspend the bill of rights for any suspect during the duration of an investigation, and he'd quite likely prefer that the FBI be legally allowed to torture suspects if extreme techniques were viewed as likely to result in usef…

Members of our government are so indoctrinated about stopping "terrorism" that they have lost all sense of perspective. In this case, it might be better to assume malice rather than incompetence. In the 1950's it was s/terrorist/communist/, but it was a remarkably effective political tool. We might be in the same situation. But this time, our fates are all linked. Once shipping backdoors becomes mainstream, it might…

> We should try to think of some concrete steps to resist this. It feels like we have to try, since there's so much at stake.

Great point. One idea I had recently is to start an organization in the same spirit as Open AI called OpenSurveillance that builds and releases all sorts of useful tools for thwarting surveillance efforts or acting as an adversary to an entity with pervasive surveillance power (generally speaking, corrupt regimes around the world).

I think it would entail a combination of social/operational and technological tools, and would be useful for defensive and offensive efforts.

When OpenAI releases a state of the art facial recognition algorithm, it becomes obvious how the technology might be used for good or for evil. The same goal would apply.

Perhaps one utility conducts an analysis of public social media data to determine the best strategy for bribing or compromising an adversary. Another could explain how to use a HackRF YARDStick One to track the movement of an adversary via tire air pressure sensors. Another might utilize an infra-red camera to determine which entrances and exits of a building are slow to close and could offer time to sneak in.

Still other tools might be a user-friendly rootkit installer for easy installation on a spouse or boss's device, etc., or maybe a program that trains a fleet of drones to follow a person all day, causes vehicle engine failure, etc.

The basic idea would be to highlight enough about reality so that the security (and privacy) implications of the policies can be weighed accurately by the public. By putting all the tools in one place and releasing polished, thoughtful products, the organization would help the public understand the privacy/security tradeoffs much better.

Basically a modern Anarchist's Cookbook for the surveillance age.

Disclaimer: It is not the intent of this post to discourage people to break laws, simply to use their vote and influence to peacefully change laws.

Re: FBI director Comey backs new Feinstein push for decrypt bill

#65

Post by mgleason_3 »

Unbelievable. Just happened to see a clip today (https://goo.gl/F9XeQU) where Feinstein was "grilling" Comey about announcing the investigation into Clinton right before the election.

When Feinstein totally let him off the hook I was floored?!? He interfered worse than the Russians - how does he still have a job?

Ahh, she wants his support for the decrypt bill. I'll never understand why the Democrats have zero interest in protecting personal privacy.

Re: FBI director Comey backs new Feinstein push for decrypt bill

#66

Post by 1457389 »

arglebarnacle wrote: post #59
1457389 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>He'd quite likely prefer that the FBI be legally allowed to torture suspects if extreme techniques were viewed as likely to result in useful information. To law enforcement, the rights of a suspect are a barrier to many convictions. Not Comey. In this committee session he bluntly said torture is not effective and that his personal standard for what constitutes torture is more stringent than that in the statutes.

>...if extreme techniques were viewed as likely to result in useful information Right, he wouldn't use it because he doesn't believe it's effective. The GP is suggesting that if it were effective and legal, do you really believe he would refrain from doing it on moral grounds? It's the prerogative of the FBI to pursue cases using essentially all effective legal means, and it's no surprise to hear they are lobbying fo…

No. Like I said, he literally stated word for word that torture is both morally wrong in his eyes and ineffective, not to mention illegal.

Paraphrasing here but I think his definition was along the lines of "anything that purposefully causes physical harm or injury to a person", and when asked whether bad prison food counts, he said that in his eyes for his team that is not something he would condone. This was a pretty straightforward response; the man at least talks the good talk on torture.

Re: FBI director Comey backs new Feinstein push for decrypt bill

#67

Post by 1457389 »

rhizome wrote: post #56
1457389 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>He'd quite likely prefer that the FBI be legally allowed to torture suspects if extreme techniques were viewed as likely to result in useful information. To law enforcement, the rights of a suspect are a barrier to many convictions. Not Comey. In this committee session he bluntly said torture is not effective and that his personal standard for what constitutes torture is more stringent than that in the statutes.

Sure, but if the populace and the political climate demanded torture from the FBI and he refused, he would be fired and replaced with someone not so principled in their opposition.

Yeah, he seems like a great example of someone who bows to the populace and political climate based on his track record...

Re: FBI director Comey backs new Feinstein push for decrypt bill

#68

Post by 1457389 »

yjftsjthsd-h wrote: post #54
1457389 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>He'd quite likely prefer that the FBI be legally allowed to torture suspects if extreme techniques were viewed as likely to result in useful information. To law enforcement, the rights of a suspect are a barrier to many convictions. Not Comey. In this committee session he bluntly said torture is not effective and that his personal standard for what constitutes torture is more stringent than that in the statutes.

That's not a moral position, that's one branch of the conditional: > if extreme techniques were viewed as likely to result in useful information He's not arguing that torture is wrong, he's arguing that torture doesn't work.

No he stated his moral position (that torture is wrong) first, and then at the end of his answer appended "and of course it is ineffective, but that is another story".

Maybe listen/read to his full response first?

Re: FBI director Comey backs new Feinstein push for decrypt bill

#69

Post by abritinthebay »

cracell wrote: post #53
dhfhduk wrote: post #10

I'm confused about this. I'm hurried at the moment, but this seems to a bill that orders tech companies to provide a solution to encryption without having a backdoor? Isn't this like legislating a violation of mathematics or something?

Sounds like the thinking is "Anyone can use backdoors so they are bad but we have to have access to everything. So give us access without a backdoor." I suppose tech companies could give them a backdoor and call it a front door?

> I suppose tech companies could give them a backdoor and call it a front door?

They're more likely to go "LOL, no" and as it's both impossible AND compelling speech is impossible per 1st Amendment the Government would end up losing in the courts.

Post reply on HN