
FBI official: It’s America’s choice whether we want to be spied on - pavornyoh
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/11/fbi-official-its-americas-choice-whether-we-want-to-be-spied-on/
======
tyre
The title is a little misleading. From the article:

> FBI Director James Comey told a congressional panel last month that the
> Obama administration won't ask Congress for legislation requiring the tech
> sector to install backdoors that let authorities access encrypted data.
> However, Comey said the administration will lobby private companies to
> create such backdoors.

If the administration asks Congress to legislate on the issue, then they are
asking the people to weigh in (through their representatives.)

Private lobbying by the executive branch is not the people deciding.

Although we elect the president, unilateral executive actions (executive
orders, private lobbying) are in the darker-grey areas of representation.
Important tool for efficiency's sake, but, used in highly controversial areas,
feel to me more like side-stepping sensitive issues.

Similarly, his later comments contradict how government surveillance is
traditionally implemented:

> At the most fundamental level, it really is about the relationship between
> the people and the government, in particular... when it relates to
> surveillance by the government of the people and under what set of
> circumstances do the people want that to happen. What do you want us to do
> and what risks are you willing to take on all sides of the equation?

If the people don't know what means of surveillance are being implemented,
they have no way of determining under what circumstances they want
surveillance to happen.

~~~
meric
The title is a lie. Either Tech companies are required to install backdoors or
the administration will incentivise private companies to create such
backdoors.

In the best case scenario, it's up the management of the company to refuse to
create such backdoors. There's no America's choice here.

"Baker said today that it’s important to balance all the different concerns. "

This is bad phrasing. Do we decide if it's important to balance all different
concerns between a robber and a victim? Police to Robber: "Don't take
everything. You only need $200, so take only $100 as a compromise and leave
the wallet."

~~~
nickff
I can imagine an FBI official going to a tech or communications company and
saying "either give us access to your users' data, or we will spend our time
looking _very_ closely at _you_ ". This is especially likely and frightening
given the (recent) Yates memo.[1]

[1]
[http://www.justice.gov/dag/file/769036/download](http://www.justice.gov/dag/file/769036/download)

~~~
mikeyouse
I don't really get the objections to the Yates memo.. People were _outraged_
that nobody went to jail post-GFC, now the FBI puts together a framework to
ensure jailtime for criminals and people are _outraged_ that they're going to
cooperate with the businesses to get convictions?

------
mikeash
This is what I've been saying for a while. The US government is all kinds of
screwed up, but at the end of the day it's still reasonably representative. If
We The People decided tomorrow that we wanted to put a stop to all of this
surveillance, then it would stop. The screwed-upness does add some amount of
bias, so if it was, say, 51% against and 49% in favor, it might well keep
going. But if it was more like 75/25 against, it would stop pretty much
immediately.

It's our choice. If you don't feel that "our choice" matches your own wishes
(it certainly doesn't match mine) then that's just because you're in the
minority, or at best you're in a majority with very slim margins.

~~~
joesmo
Tell that to the 2000 presidential election...

~~~
nickff
Can everyone please stop bringing this up? The 2000 Presidential Election was
the inevitable consequence of the electoral system; there is almost no way to
recount the votes and get a different result.[1]

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_election_recount#Post-...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_election_recount#Post-
election_studies)

~~~
joesmo
Whether Gore or Bush actually won the election is inconsequential at this
point, save for the lasting damage. Almost 100% of the American people want
fair elections which means that all votes are counted. If the American people
can't even get fair elections, something almost 100% of them undoubtedly want,
then they certainly can't get anything else passed. So no, we won't stop
bringing this up as it's a very real issue that we're still suffering the
consequences of and a great counterexample to the post I replied to.

~~~
nickff
All votes were counted. What Gore wanted was a recount of certain areas, but
without uniform standards, it clearly viotlated Equal Protections, as well as
not being possible to complete before the deadline. To be clear, that portion
of the Supreme Court opinion was unanimous; the remedy was where the split
was.

~~~
joesmo
Counted, just incorrectly. Fine for US elections.

------
dmix
> We go to judges, we do what the law requires,

> Baker said the issue must ultimately be decided by the American people.

Which is why they absolutely love Stringrays and have tried so desperately to
a) not require warrants to use them and b) shield their usage of it from the
public.

By 'going dark' on their exploitation of this technology they've managed to
restrict public knowledge and ability to debate the fact they are flying
Cesnas, containing Stingrays, in non-stop circles around most major American
cities. Going as far as buying/registering the planes via shell companies and
withholding they're use as evidence in trials.

------
joesmo
How ironic: it's America's choice, but when we get there to make the choice we
don't have a way to make it. Seriously, what a bunch of bullshit. The only
reason they're not legislating back doors is because they fear the backlash.
Making such choices in America is an ability we lost many years ago.
Encryption is our last line of defense in a country whose government is no
longer bound by the rule of law (was it ever?) and certainly no longer serves
the people (though arguably, it never did.)

~~~
jschwartzi
The fact that they fear the backlash is why we're not living in a totalitarian
state yet. When our elected officials no longer fear us, we will very soon
lose the ability to elect them.

------
EdSharkey
You're not the owner of your data if you farm out storage/serving of that data
or transmit it with weak/no encryption.

You could pay someone to store and manage your data, and have contracts with
them to prevent them from sharing the data. But you better be sure that data
is stored at the 3rd party encrypted where you hold the keys, otherwise those
contracts are meaningless to the government who can demand access to your data
in secret if they choose.

The way forward I can see is for us all to host servers run from one's own
home and with replicas stored at trusted friend's and family's houses in case
of disaster. New protocols would need to be invented to replace things like
email though, it would require quite an upheaval.

------
avmich
It's interesting that those agencies claim their access to communications is
required for them to do their work.

It feels a little bit like they got too lazy and relying on those telegraph
messages used relatively widely - contrary to letter contents - will always be
available to them. Now, a couple century later, they're suddenly at the state
when that's not always the case - but they did they work relying on that for
so long they can't do that otherwise...

Wonder what other means to catch criminals could be available?

------
pdkl95
> “split-key encryption,” in which tech companies would give governments the
> ability to decrypt data

Aka Skipjack/"Clipper Chip". They are reusing 20 year old plans.

------
grhmc
> The complexity of having 200 nations, each with access to keys, is just
> unimaginable,” she said

Agreed! Now how are we going to fix the certificate authorities?

------
mcphage
> The FBI has an easier time getting data from companies whose business models
> depend on viewing customer data, he said.

That says it all right there, I think.

------
aston1980
I guess it is always that balance, but at the end of the day, he who controls
the flow of information does have the ultimate power. Fed's require access to
monitor for disruptive things, yet the minute the population finds out, its a
free for all( congressional hearings, lawsuits etc...); yet the same political
BS occurs when a situation does occur,(9/11) and nothing was done to prevent
it. In the end it is a no win situation. Frankly, we do need to be protected..
mainly against ourselves...

~~~
joesmo
How many warnings do you need about people flying planes into buildings to
actually do something about it? We had quite detailed warnings from multiple
places. And none of them required decryption.

------
NN88
To be honest, nothing bad has happened...yet.

