
FBI repeatedly overstated encryption threat figures to Congress, public - molecule
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/fbi-repeatedly-overstated-encryption-threat-figures-to-congress-public/2018/05/22/5b68ae90-5dce-11e8-a4a4-c070ef53f315_story.html
======
saagarjha
How is this legal? Wray just lied to Congress. Sure, the FBI has an excuse
that they simply overcounted, but when you make no effort to correct your
previously erroneous count, and it clearly is in your advantage to keep citing
the old figure, I don't think you can claim that you made a statement that
was, to the best of your ability, true.

~~~
whatshisface
Making speech illegal is very dangerous ground, so while I agree that this
looks suspicious I'm in the end happy that "don't lie to Congress" is being
handled with soft gloves. There is also an abuse potential in _accusing_
people of lying, that this lax enforcement reduces.

/cynical/ if you could get easily prosecuted from telling Congress "incorrect"
information, it might be predominantly used against lone whistleblowers who
had ended up on the loosing side of a very effective information squashing
campaign. That's just one example of how such a law could be abused if it was
over-enforced. /end cynical/

~~~
saagarjha
Lying to the federal government or while you're on trial is not protected
under free speech, as far as I'm aware.

~~~
whatshisface
There are many places where lying is against the rules - and proving that an
incorrect statement is a lie is equally impossible in all of them. As a result
it's protected speech in practice. (The courts could make it easier to
convict, they have chosen this standard of evidence for a reason.)

~~~
sjy
How is lying different to any other crime of intent in this regard?

~~~
whatshisface
It's possible that other crimes of intent are also unenforceable. If the law
says, "between two identical actions and circumstances, you are in violation
for the one with bad intent," then lawyers will probably be able to prevent
any conviction (outside of someone getting on the news and announcing their
hatred for humanity!). If the law says, "because we want to discourage this
intent, this specific action is illegal under these circumstances," then it
will work the same way as any other criminal law (it will be possible to
assemble evidence and get prosecutions even against skilled defenses.)

~~~
sjy
People do get convicted of murder and perjury, though.

------
rdiddly
EDIT: AAaand... they changed the photo! What I say below is still _slightly_
true of the current photo, but you should've seen the original one. Here's a
copy somebody cached of it:

[http://wat-if.com/fbi-repeatedly-overstated-encryption-threa...](http://wat-
if.com/fbi-repeatedly-overstated-encryption-threat-figures-to-congress-
public/)

\------

Check out the contrasting body language in the photo. Wray looking smug,
practically _sauntering_ (reminds me of this:
[http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/strutting-
leo](http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/strutting-leo)), not a care in the world.
On the left is someone from the Capitol Police, much lower-ranked, who
actually worries about and protects things for a living and probably doesn't
get as much sleep as he should.

The first guy could stand to be a little more like the second, since at least
in theory he's the "top law enforcement officer in the land" and a supposed
protector of law and order. In reality he's presumably an expert at playing
politics, doing favors, and stretching the truth to get an advantage, such
as... hey, this article. Not to mention that spying on people, I suspect, has
a lot less to do with guy-on-the-left/protecting-people concerns than it does
with guy-on-the-right/political-jockeying concerns.

~~~
woodruffw
The top enforcement officer in the US is the attorney general, to whom the FBI
director reports.

I wouldn't read too much into the body language. Newspapers choose whatever
relatively recent pictures they have, coupled with _some_ relevant features
(leading to those great pouty-face photos whenever there's bad news for the
person involved).

~~~
rdiddly
Ah you mean "scandal face." Yeah those are a hoot.

And yeah I'm not necessarily trying too hard to link the photo to this news in
space and time; just taking it on its own, and extrapolating. I rarely pay
this much attention to the art.

------
tbyehl
I'm always bothered by the sense of entitlement. A warrant just says they're
allowed to infringe someone's 4A rights in order to look for and seize
evidence. It's not a _promise_ that they'll find and be able to use whatever
it is they're looking for.

And I don't think the FBI has ever stated that they dropped or lost a case due
to crypto.

------
gburt
I'm having a hard time speculating about what phones are "encrypted
cellphones" by this count. Are they counting iOS devices with a strong
passcode or is there some other functionality they're specifically "having
trouble" with? I find it hard to believe they're talking about Phantom and
specific-application "cryptophones."

~~~
sjy
They’re talking about ordinary phones. Before full-disk encryption became
common, it was usually trivial for law enforcement to access data on phones,
laptops and other devices physically seized under a warrant. That’s often
impossible now that data is encrypted at rest by default.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FBI–Apple_encryption_dispute](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FBI–Apple_encryption_dispute)

~~~
gburt
If that is the case, why are there only 2000? The conditions must be more
complex than that. Unless 2000 is nearly every phone they touched in that time
period?

------
OliverJones
News Flash!

Executives of US federal government entity lie to executives of another US
federal government entity!

Videotape at ten! Tune in!

------
DINKDINK
A government agency that cant even count properly wants to control a back door
key to swaths of private communications. Let that sink in.

~~~
Iv
"FBI: Federal Bureau of Investigation, aka the Downtown Gang. Very good at
breaking up used car rings. Kind of confused on anything more complicated. Fun
to jerk with. Not fun when they jerk back."

From Stratfor's leaked Glossary of Useful, Baffling and Strange Intelligence
Terms [1]

[1]
[https://wikileaks.org/IMG/pdf/The_Stratfor_Glossary_of_Usefu...](https://wikileaks.org/IMG/pdf/The_Stratfor_Glossary_of_Useful_Baffling_and_Strange_Intelligence_Terms.pdf)

~~~
lallysingh
Thanks for this. It's great.

~~~
Iv
You're welcome! I have read it a dozen of time, I never pass an occasion to
post it :-)

