
FBI chief calls for national talk over encryption vs. safety - jacquesm
http://chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-fbi-chief-encryption-phones-20160805-story.html
======
rudedogg
To sum up how I feel:

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary
Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

\---------------------------

"The San Bernardino litigation was necessary, but in my view, it was also
counterproductive," Comey said during his 20-minute speech. "It was necessary
because we had to get into that phone. It was counterproductive because it
made it very hard to have a complex conversation."

No.. you pushed for the conversation right after the terrorist shooting hoping
the public would be scared enough to cave.

~~~
rayiner
While I'm sympathetic to your point, that quote is always taken out of
context: [http://www.npr.org/2015/03/02/390245038/ben-franklins-
famous...](http://www.npr.org/2015/03/02/390245038/ben-franklins-famous-
liberty-safety-quote-lost-its-context-in-21st-century)

> He was writing about a tax dispute between the Pennsylvania General Assembly
> and the family of the Penns, the proprietary family of the Pennsylvania
> colony who ruled it from afar. And the legislature was trying to tax the
> Penn family lands to pay for frontier defense during the French and Indian
> War. And the Penn family kept instructing the governor to veto. Franklin
> felt that this was a great affront to the ability of the legislature to
> govern. And so he actually meant purchase a little temporary safety very
> literally. The Penn family was trying to give a lump sum of money in
> exchange for the General Assembly's acknowledging that it did not have the
> authority to tax it.

> It is a quotation that defends the authority of a legislature to govern in
> the interests of collective security. It means, in context, not quite the
> opposite of what it's almost always quoted as saying but much closer to the
> opposite than to the thing that people think it means.

~~~
erdevs
Thanks for the information and it's always good to have context.

I was going to say that the original meaning doesn't take anything away from
the quote as currently used and the power of _that_ meaning. But Wittes
already said that too, in the article you linked:

> _"... maybe it doesn't matter so much what Franklin was actually trying to
> say because the quotation means so much to us in terms of the tension
> between government power and individual liberties."_

I also disagree with Wittes that this means _" not quite the opposite... but
closer to the opposite [than the usual usage today]."_

Franklin was arguing that the state ought to have the right to tax in order to
defend the territory on the public's behalf. The Penns were trying to offer a
one-time fee in exchange for not being taxed going forward.

Thus, Franklin's implication seems to be: do not trade temporary security in
exchange for long-term liberty.

And so, I think the quote's modern usage and its originally intended meaning
_are_ very much in alignment. Just as the Penns offered a short-term benefit
to security in exchange for a longer-term loss to prospective liberty, the FBI
here is offering a short-term benefit (of debatable potential) to security by
disallowing encryption or having master keys/backdoors, in exchange for a
longer-term loss to prospective liberty.

It seems to me Wittes (and the NPR reporting) just isn't thinking about it
deeply enough. It's not as simple as "oh, Franklin was original discussing a
security matter and arguing _for_ the state to provide security"... in fact,
it is more nuanced and Franklin was saying that the state (and the public)
should not accept, let alone advocate for, short-term security at the cost of
long-term liberty and security.

~~~
will_brown
Is maintaining smart phone encryption after the commission of a crime, when
the Gov. otherwise has a lawful right to search and seize evidence used in the
commission of a crime an _essential liberty_?

There is another famous quote from John Stuart Mill, "Your liberty to swing
your fist ends where my nose begins."

For example, take the Constitutional Right to bear arms. Obviously we have
limited individual liberty to bear arms for safety through both regulations
and criminal statutes. I think that trade off can be pretty reasonable in some
instances (say, no guns at the airport/on a plane) and since I don't mind
sacrificing a little liberty for safety I don't think that trade off makes me
undeserving of either liberty of safety, does it?

Please note, I am not trying to take a position other than public awareness
and conversation about these things is always good; whereas, quotes about not
deserving liberty or safety only serve censor an open conversation from a
position of moral authority.

~~~
rudedogg
> Is maintaining smart phone encryption after the commission of a crime, when
> the Gov. otherwise has a lawful right to search and seize evidence used in
> the commission of a crime an essential liberty?

I would say NO. But, the issue is there's no way to _only_ allow a backdoor to
be used when/after someone commits a crime. As tech people we understand this,
and history proves it. Apple had a person testify at the hearing who expressed
this really well. She also brought up other points I hadn't considered.

Also, the FBI is missing non-encrypted communications in most of these cases!
I know encryption by default is going to be a problem for them in the future,
but they are acting like it's the reason the recent attacks went undetected -
when it actually had nothing to do with it.

~~~
will_brown
>there's no way to only allow a backdoor to be used when/after someone commits
a crime.

Outside of the encryption debate, this concept rings true of most evidence. In
other words in the streets nothing really prohibits an officer from illegally
searching/seizing evidence of a crime and a prosecutor bringing charges, but
the 4th Amendment is our protection only after the fact where illegally
obtained evidence is subject to being suppressed from use at trial. Example,
police illegally raid a house without a warrant, break open a safe and seize
cocaine...all evidence of crimes including the illegally seized cocaine could
be suppressed.

Is there a way to determine when the backdoor was accessed? If so, then the
defendant is actually more protected because there would be digital record of
the illegal search/seizure vs the street example above where officers can lie
about the factual events regarding illegal searches and seizures (i.e.
testimony the defendant was outside the house in plain view holding the
cocaine, so a warrant wasn't required). If not and it can't be determined when
LEO accessed the backdoor it is still similar to any other illegally obtained
evidence.

>but they are acting like it's the reason the recent attacks went undetected -
when it actually had nothing to do with it.

I thought they tried to limit their position to need for the follow up
investigation, but if they framed it to the public the way you describe, I
agree that is disingenuous.

------
matt_wulfeck
The FBI is living in the hole it dug for itself. Where was the "conversation"
about warrantless wiretapping? I certainly don't remember it. What about the
conversation about secret FISA courts?

Sorry our constitution is making your job harder. Feel free not to cash your
paycheck next week if you think it's too hard for you.

~~~
jliptzin
I don't even understand why they care so much if they can't solve a case due
to lack of access to electronic data. Just move on to the next case. Are they
getting paid on commission based on how many cases are solved? If anyone asks
why a specific case wasn't solved just point to the encryption and move on

~~~
Veratyr
I understand your point but imagine working in the FBI. How do you tell the
victims of the crime that the people who harmed them is still out there
because you can't get access to the last piece of evidence you need?

I'm not at all saying that encryption should be removed but I can definitely
see how people who see the harm caused by crime every day could be a little
upset about being unable to do anything about it.

~~~
thwarted
Probably the same way the State Department tells the families of journalists
detained by foreign governments that they are "working on it", but that it
just not worth it, financially and politically, to unleash the full power of
the Department of Defense to recover an individual.

------
newacct23
It's not encryption vs. safety. It's functioning software systems vs safety
and there is actually no conflict because functioning systems are _necessary_
for safety.

So really the FBI director should have phrased it as "lack of encryption vs.
safety".

~~~
ethbro
I'm on the "encryption is a right and essential to functioning software
systems" train with you. But I don't want stick my head in the sand and
pretend the other side doesn't have valid points.

If all network devices were trivially penetrated by government surveillance, a
hypothetical terrorist plot with a WMD has chance A of being discovered. If
network devices that are impenetrable to government surveillance are used, I'm
not going to argue that the same plot doesn't have < A chance of being
discovered (ceteris paribus).

I happen to believe that's a good and _just_ tradeoff to preserve the values
of a democratic society, but I accept that others might think otherwise.

The US (and France, and the UK, and everyone else grappling with this that
cares to pretend to be a democracy) should absolutely have a thorough,
resolute discussion about our options.

~~~
cmdrfred
If alcohol prohibition was reinstated it would probably save about 88,000[0]
lives a year in the US. Between 1995 and 2014, 3503[1] US Citizens worldwide
were killed by terrorism. If congress wants to save lives it could be done in
a much less constitutionally suspect way. This is why I suspect that saving
lives is not the true reasoning.

[0][http://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/fact-sheets/alcohol-
use.htm](http://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/fact-sheets/alcohol-use.htm)

[1][https://www.start.umd.edu/pubs/START_AmericanTerrorismDeaths...](https://www.start.umd.edu/pubs/START_AmericanTerrorismDeaths_FactSheet_Oct2015.pdf)

~~~
slavik81
Prohibition was repealed because it was an abject failure. It did not make the
public safer last time, and I very much doubt this time around would be any
different.

The claim that reinstating prohibition would prevent all alcohol-related
deaths is simply not based in reality.

~~~
cmdrfred
And the current anti-terror programs are a resounding success?

~~~
slavik81
I neither said not implied anything about the anti-terror programs. I solely
wanted to address your claims about reinstating prohibition, lest someone
support it based on that flawed analysis.

------
koenigdavidmj
Hint: the Constitution is intended to make your life as a cop difficult. If
you have a problem with this, I'm sure the FSB are hiring.

------
thescribe
My rights aren't really up for a talk. Encrypted speech is still speech, that
really should be the end of the talk.

~~~
aclissold
That's a very bold assumption.

~~~
SubiculumCode
Until the constitutional right to communicate unintelligibly is declared
invalid, encryption will remain constitutional.

[snarky comment about opposing political party placed here.]

------
pipio21
Encryption does not confront safety. It is only FBI that wants us to think
this way. Encryption IS safety against people in power holding too much power.

I have the right to have private conversations with my family, friends and
coworkers, specially if I work from home using teleworking tools. I will fight
to defend this right if necessary.

If someone believes anything I do is illegal I have no problem when they have
a warrant, but massive surveillance is criminal.

It is a crime they had not paid for yet, like Hillary Clinton or all the
financial dome they are used to do everything against the law with no
consequences.

~~~
coldtea
> _Encryption does not confront safety. It is only FBI that wants us to think
> this way. Encryption IS safety against people in power holding too much
> power._

And also people NOT in power. From nosy spouses to "cyber-criminals", identity
theft and so on...

~~~
pipio21
Yeah, I include criminals in the power side too. In Italy Servia or Russia for
example, the Mafia is part of the power structure.

In some places of Africa it is already very dangerous to communicate digitally
because of digital surveillance tools developed by Israel,French or German
companies.

~~~
blacksmith_tb
The PRC's 'Great Firewall' is built on Cisco, Blue Coat, and other US
companies' technologies as well [1].

1: [https://insidersurveillance.com/cisco-huawei-and-
semptian-a-...](https://insidersurveillance.com/cisco-huawei-and-semptian-a-
look-behind-the-great-firewall-of-china/)

------
fragsworth
The entire world today works efficiently because of encryption. The more
encrypted things are, the easier and safer it is for us to communicate
remotely. Encryption _IS_ safety. Take it away and we're back to having to
communicate important information in person, or risk our own security and
safety.

Also, no matter what the government does to prevent the general public from
encrypting stuff, aren't big-time criminals going to encrypt their
communications anyway? So we're not solving any problems by having this
discussion, are we?

------
dmatthewson
Maybe the FBI should spend less time suing Apple and more time finding out
where the wife of the Orlando shooter has disappeared to given she was proven
to have assisted him with the crime and knew about it in advance.

The FBI might also do well to look into the mother of the San Bernardino
shooters who lived with them in a house full of bombs and guns and yet somehow
never had any idea what was going on.

These seem better leads than this constant obsession with searching everyone's
phones.

~~~
tedunangst
How did the FBI come to know that the Orlando shooter's wife knew about it in
advance?

~~~
dmatthewson
Because she told them she did. Noor Mateen told the FBI she was with him when
he bought ammunition and a holster and that she once drove him to the Pulse
nightclub because he wanted to scope it out. She told federal agents she tried
to talk her husband out of carrying out the attack against the nightclub.

------
pdkl95
Encryption vs safety? This is carefully framed in a way that ignores the
safety _provided by_ proper encryption. This isn't "encryption vs safety", but
actual safety of secure communication and personal data vs possible safety of
solving a few more criminal cases.

As koenigdavidmj already mentioned, one of the key principles of a free
society is that liberty and justice is more important than law enforcement
convenience. It is better to let the guilty go free than infringing the rights
of the innocent. The police will simply have to be more creative and find
alternative ways to do their work.

Of course, the FBI and congress already knows this, as Susan Landau already
explained this in her testimony before the House Judiciary Committee.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1GgnbN9oNw#t=12944](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1GgnbN9oNw#t=12944)

------
wyldfire
Why no guff when SSL was introduced? Perhaps back then there were tons of
vulnerabilities, backdoors or untrustworthy CAs, but can it still be the case
now? The FBI would have us believe that some kinds of encryption are
acceptable? If that's the case then they must already have a way to circumvent
it.

~~~
ethbro
Because SSL is intricately tied to the CA infrastructure and thus able to be
meddled with when the government decides it has national security concerns?

~~~
JoshTriplett
For now, and only if the CA feels like taking an existential risk. Browsers
requiring Certificate Transparency should make it impossible to subvert the CA
system _secretly_ , and subverting it _openly_ kills a CA.

~~~
ethbro
Subverting SSL/TLS kills a CA _when noticed and reported_. Hypothetically, if
you're identifying targets through other means and diverting their connections
at the backbone level before monkeying with them then you're not running that
big of a risk, statistically speaking.

Especially not when the CA's alternative is Serious Legal Consequences of
ignoring a NSL.

~~~
JoshTriplett
Browsers can enforce Certificate Transparency for certificates from a given
CA; once they reach the point of enforcing it for all CAs, browsers will no
longer trust a certificate issued surreptitiously and not logged in the CT
logs.

And even before that point, any site using certificate and CA pinning can
protect against the use of the "wrong" CA to issue a certificate for their
site.

> Especially not when the CA's alternative is Serious Legal Consequences of
> ignoring a NSL.

I'd _love_ to see the court case brought by a CA that refuses to kill their
entire business. But in any case, eventually, a certificate issued secretly by
a CA won't be trusted by any browser, NSL or no NSL.

------
jmsdnns
Pretty sure not hiring pothead hackers is a bigger problem for the FBI than
the encryption they keep whining about.

------
fwn
Such debates are always a funny move.

It's like saying "let's have a national talk over encryption versus ethernal
peace and harmony". Arguing for encryption in such a frame is determined to be
a failure.

~~~
jfmiller28
To me this feels more like the head of the KKK suggesting that we should have
a national conversion about the proper place of blacks in society.

------
pmarreck
At least he's asking for a talk instead of outright decreeing privacy the
enemy of security

~~~
waterphone
He's banking on the fact that most people don't care about privacy and are
more easily swayed towards giving it up for vague promises of safety when
scared by threats of terrorism.

------
skraelingjar
The FBI is the face of the larger government trying to control the people,
which is hard to do when their communication is encrypted. They're playing off
the fears of the sheeple and don't deserve our attention.

------
ddp
"There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be
to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty." \- John
Adams, 1772

------
JustSomeNobody
How about we have an honest conversation about how the government is eroding
the Bill of Rights?

------
Esau
Fuck James Comey and fuck the FBI. I will continue to choose freedom over
safety.

