FBI Director Warns Google and Apple "If You Don't Decrypt Phones, We'll Do It For You"

Townhall.com ^ | October 19 | Mike Shedlock

[Kaslin]

The Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution is crystal clear in meaning.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

FBI Director, James Comey, an Obama appointment, does not give a damn what the Constitution says.

In a recent speech, Comey warns If Apple and Google Won't Decrypt Phones, We'll Force Them To

Everyone is stoked that the latest versions of iOS and Android will (finally) encrypt all the information on your smartphone by default. Except, of course, the FBI: Today, its director spent an hour attacking the companies and the very idea of encryption, even suggesting that Congress should pass a law banning the practice of default encryption.

It's of course no secret that James Comey and the FBI hate the prospect of "going dark," the idea that law enforcement simply doesn't have the technical capability to track criminals (and the average person) because of all those goddamn apps, encryption, wifi network switching, and different carriers.

"Encryption isn’t just a technical feature; it’s a marketing pitch … it’s the equivalent of a closet that can’t be opened. A safe that can’t be cracked. And my question is, at what cost?" Comey said. "Both companies [Apple and Google] are run by good people, responding to what they perceive is a market demand. But the place they are leading us is one we shouldn’t go to without careful thought and debate."

Safe That Cannot be Cracked

A safe that cannot be cracked and a door that cannot be opened except by the rightful owner is precisely what everyone should want. It's what the Constitution explicitly states. Instead, Comey wants the right to read your papers and search your effects.

“Perhaps it’s time to suggest that the post-Snowden pendulum has swung too far in one direction—in a direction of fear and mistrust," claims Comey.

Excuse me, but what pendulum is Comey talking about?

The privacy pendulum has not budged an inch in the right direction. Not one new privacy law has been passed or even discussed.

To prove how much above the law these law-enforcement jackasses are, one Pentagon official stated "I would love to put a bullet in Snowden's head".

No one threatening to kill Snowden has been censured.

For blatant disrespect of the US Constitution, Comey ought to be fired, but there's nary a peep from Obama.

I suggest we need a cultural change from the top down starting with a p

[JOAT]

It’s not as if they can’t crack any commercially available encryption, they just want easy access.

[lepton]

The are legitimate reasons for the government to be able to have files/phones opened...but the problem here is that they have completely abused their powers, authority, and any presumption of legitimacy one might have.

[taxcontrol]

If the GOP had a spine they would be hauling his but before an investigation committee.

[lepton]

Btw, Snowden released some things we needed to have known - and that’s a good thing...but he went far beyond that well into treason.

[Sherman Logan]

The idea here is that these files can’t be accessed even with a warrant.

I have no idea whether that’s really true or not.

But the Constitution prohibits “unreasonable search and seizure,” which of course means that reasonable S&S is entirely constitutional.

There is some danger with communications and files that can’t be seized and inspected even with a warrant.

[faithhopecharity]

the only thing worse than criminal conduct out here in society is the criminal conduct of those in public office

[T-Bird45]

Comey quote FTA: "But the place they are leading us is one we shouldn’t go to without careful thought and debate."

Sorry, Director, thought and discussion took place 1787-1789 by people much smarter than either of us. Case closed, figure out how to do your job without snooping. You know, like listening to your field agents when they tell you about a bunch of ragheads at a flight school who don't want to learn about landing the plane.

[Forgotten Amendments]

If the GOP had a spine they would be hauling his but before an investigation committee.

You sound like the victims of Stalin's purges who went to their grave shouting, "You'll regret this when Comrade Stalin hears about it!" ;)

The GOP is all for this. McCain. Peter King. All the Bushies. And this guy Comey got famous by framing Martha Stewart for the Bush administration.

If you think the 4th Amendment actually means something, the GOP says you are a "wacko bird". Both parties have contempt for us.

[OneWingedShark]

Btw, Snowden released some things we needed to have known - and that’s a good thing...but he went far beyond that well into treason.

I don't believe that he did, and even if he did by the very Constitution that defines Treason the actual details (not some nebulous he compromised operations BS) would have to be revealed to the jury and the case made that such information was levying War against them [the States], or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort because No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

[Cboldt]

You have the technological point correct, the files are (claimed to be) inaccessible even with a warrant. Current practice is to seize the phone, and send it to Apple with a copy of the signed warrant. Pursuant to the warrant, Apple gives unencrypted phone contents to the police.

What Apple is claiming is that it will lock itself out of that capability.

[RugerMini14]

The real treason is committed day in and day out by the apparatchiks at the NSA, FBI, & other myriad bureaucracies who piss on the Constitution without the slightest hesitancy or regret.

Snowden is a hero, not a traitor.

[Clump]

Warrantless searches and seizures are presumptively unconstitutional just FYI.
Yes I do happen to be a lawyer in this area of practice.
The “reasonableness” clause has been used to apply to “administrative searches” such as airport screenings, etc.
But targeting an individual’s phone or computer? That must be done with individualized and particularized suspicion whereby articulated facts support probable cause that a crime has been committed and warrant should issue.
I don't see any constitutional justification for the government having blanket authority to search the contents of our belongings, digital or otherwise.
The danger to our liberty is greater than any danger posed by the criminal element.
In other words, the government has become the danger that our Founders fought hard to restrain.

[W.]

They won’t be happy until they can root through everything on every device from their office chairs. Period.

[AnotherUnixGeek]

The are legitimate reasons for the government to be able to have files/phones opened

If so, they can go to court, persuade a judge and obtain a warrant requiring the owner of the device (not the manufacturer) to unlock the device. Since 9/11 we've somehow transitioned seamlessly and without public debate into a society in which the presumption of innocence - which is far older than the US - and the Fourth Amendment are blatantly disregarded by government officials, including the FBI director.

According to the FBI director and other government legal innovators, we're all potentially guilty in the eyes of the government, and therefore none of us have a right to secure our own property to the point where the government can't easily break that security. When do we finally say "enough"? Did I miss the referendum in which we voted to turn into East Germany under the Stasi?

[Sherman Logan]

Unless I’m confused, which is quite possible, the reference was not to fishing expeditions but to inability to search data for which they have a legitimate warrant.

I don’t disagree with most of what you say, but I don’t know of any major push to giving “the government ...blanket authority to search the contents of our belongings, digital or otherwise.”

The government, again as I understand it, is recording and storing data that it cannot later search without a warrant.

I don’t particularly like that idea, but it’s not “searching the contents without a warrant.” Assuming they always bother to get one.

[Carry_Okie]

We have a fundamental problem between citizen and government. When we assign the responsibility to government to protect us in every case, government necessarily requires powers to accomplish that task. When it comes to terrorism, government is structurally inept simply because it is a type of conflict more appropriate for the national militia. That means government must get out of the way.

Were there bounties on terrorists, illegals, and other lawbreakers, this situation would quell in a hurry and our threat level would be greatly reduced. What we need in parallel is clear and severe penalties for false arrest and detainment. The founders meant for enforcement of simple laws by the people as an essential principle of liberty. The sooner we realize that, the better.

[RushIsMyTeddyBear]

I question his motives and if he was working for a foreign entity. It seemed pre-meditated.

[PIF]

Yes indeed he’s a hero as over 90 percent of what he got was military methods and means ... boons to China and Russia.

[RugerMini14]

China and Russia are insignificant enemies compared to the lawless, unconstitutional Federal government.

It is horrifically sad that the above statement is true.