Posted on 10/17/2014 4:17:20 PM PDT by e-gadfly
FBI Director James Comey gave a strong speech today (Oct. 16) explaining why law enforcement should have access to data on encrypted smartphones. But he failed to cite any examples in which such law-enforcement access could have made the difference between life and death....
The Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA) of 1994 mandates that telecommunications companies must give police the ability to listen in on telephone conversations. CALEA covers landlines and cellular carriers, and was expanded in 2004 to cover Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) providers and broadband Internet service providers.
For the past few years, the FBI has sought another expansion of CALEA, this time to gain access to encrypted Internet-based communications such as instant messaging and social networking. The White House has refused to act on the FBI's requests....
In a question-and-answer session following his speech, Comey was asked if he could cite a specific case in which someone would not have been rescued as a result of cellphone encryption. He could not.
"It's time that the post-Snowden pendulum be seen as having swung too far in one direction," Comey said. "Have we become so suspicious of government, and of law enforcement, that we will let bad guys walk away?"
(Excerpt) Read more at tomsguide.com ...
F the Feds.
They can’t spy on Americans? Too effing bad.
At this point, they have become the enemy.
Does the FBI regulate safes to be sure they can be cracked?
The FBI despises freedom.
a guy who has just burned down a church full of people walks up to you and asks for your help.
do you trust this guy...?
I think Republicans and Democrats can both agree on this one.
There’s no reason for personal data to not remain private and secure.
I love how they continually downplay how they still can easily acquire your call lists, your texts and your emails.
In what universe is that NOT ENOUGH? That’s already too much to be easily available. But the full contents of anyone’s device at any time? Get real!
Don’t you mean “A COMPOUND”?
There are a lot of members of the Obama Administration who are competing to win the socialists’ prized Martin Bormann Wannabee Award - aka Government by Brute [Legal] Force “Achievement.”
Let's have his passwords, every single one.
And his wife's and his kid's.
His friends, and his parent's info.
Because that's what he's asking of us.
And he can just trust us that nothing bad will happen.
Hey, Comey....get a warrant.
Is that above the pay grade of your agents?
Gee, this is the 1990s all over again with PGP encryption. The Feds lost - in fact they were humiliated.
FUFBI
If this causes them problems, tough. They brought it on themselves by forfeiting the public’s trust, IMO.
There will be no bad guys walking away...without being able to violate the rights of cell phone users, the FBI might have to undertake the serious work of police work to catch the criminals...
This was signed into law by Clinton, and expanded by BUSH.
It’s already “bi-partisan” legislation.
Obama’s FBI directory is an idiot for expecting everyone to make his potentially unlawful activity easy.
If it were suppose to be easy there would be no such thing as a 5th amendment. But even given that all them meaningfull Federal Constitutional restrictions have been effectively thrown out by the hand picked Federal employees in black robes its still not rational to expect you can prohibit companies or people from trying to protect their data.
The technical Gene is out of the bottle, no law is ever going to put it back, you just going to have to learn to deal with it.
lol, a reasonable point of comparson but as with any remark of comparison its beside the point that they should not have nor should they ever expect to have (even if we were constitutionally capable of giving them) such a back door.
The FBI unfortunately is and has long been a somewhat dirty and constitutionally ambiguous agency, much as the whole idea of out right federal law enforcement treads into the intrastate domain of our respective State & local Government.
It is thus difficult to see as ligitimte or honest any man or woman wearing such a badge in that they took an oath to uphold a Constitution which very clearly ommits any such powers as their job requires.
How do you trust a person who can be so cognizant dissociate with regard to their own job? It makes you assume they just do it for the money or title and think nothing of the meaning of their work, which of course makes them a dangerous and constitutionally untrustworthy person to start with.
Tally another "yes" vote here.
If you want on or off the Mac Ping List, Freepmail me.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.