
FBI head defended encryption for WhatsApp before becoming fierce critic - vinni2
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/apr/30/fbi-head-christopher-wray-opposed-encryption-under-trump-once-defended-whatsapp
======
some_furry
Some people will read this story and see contradiction or hypocrisy.

And they're right, of course.

But there's also another thing at play here: Perverse incentives.

If your job becomes easier when security becomes harder, you will find
yourself fighting against better security. This is as true of FBI directors as
it is software engineers fighting against deadlines.

I don't think we can ever expect the FBI to align itself with what's right for
individual Americans and our freedom.

~~~
smoyer
Wray is a lawyer and will promote whatever side is paying him. He's now a
politician (and was never really a technologist) so hypocrisy is a required
trait.

~~~
some_furry
An unsolved problem with humans is there really isn't a good mechanism for
separating "has integrity" from "pays lip-service to the notion of having
integrity" at scale.

~~~
wahern
In an adversarial system integrity can mean being a vociferous proponent of
something you personally don't believe should come to pass as the system
relies on each side making the strongest possible argument. Or to put it
another way, an adversarial system _is_ an attempt to solve the dilemma you
pose. Notably, the Director isn't explaining why he's forcing WhatsApp to
decrypt; he's attempting to persuade others why he should be given the power.
Those are very different things.

The contemporary American political system, perhaps even more so than its
legal system in many respects, is quite adversarial.[1] And the Director of
the FBI has been a largely political position since J. Edgar Hoover, except
these days the lobbying is far more transparent.

[1] Arguably far too adversarial. We don't seem to appreciate the value in
compromise or pragmatism as much as we did at some other points in our
political history.

------
d1str0
Changing opinions is fine. Did he change because now as a LE officer he sees
actual need for looser crypto? Or is his change of opinion purely political?
This article does nothing to discuss that.

~~~
m463
I actually think one way to change opinions of OTHER people is to show some
respected individual that changed his mind. There doesn't even need to be an
explanation.

------
the_resistence
How do the authorities "win" when they demand backdoors for individual
citizen's activities/devices but companies are expected to protect their
activities at all cost and access can only be theoretically gotten through
court order?

