FBI Director Chris Wray Needs To Shut The Fuck Up About Encryption
from the SHOW-YOUR-WORK dept
FBI Director Chris Wray is still hoping to sell Americans on trading away their security for a little bit of law enforcement convenience. Wray believes the only way the FBI and other agencies will ever keep up with criminals is to do away with encryption. The “going dark” campaign may have started with Jim Comey, but Wray has proven to be every bit as obtusely tenacious as his predecessor.
Wray’s latest anti-encryption pep talk occurred at the RSA Conference. CNET reports the FBI director delivered another misguided, but impassioned, speech in defense of making everything worse for everyone but the FBI.
Encryption should have limits. That’s the message FBI Director Christopher Wray had for cybersecurity experts Tuesday. The technology that scrambles up information so only intended recipients can read it is useful, he said, but it shouldn’t provide a playground for criminals where law enforcement can’t reach them.
“It can’t be a sustainable end state for there to be an entirely unfettered space that’s utterly beyond law enforcement for criminals to hide,” Wray said during a live interview at the RSA Conference, a major cybersecurity gathering in San Francisco.
Wray can’t honestly define where encryption should stop and law enforcement access begin. All he can do is claim the status quo isn’t working because sometimes the FBI can’t get into a seized device. But how many times is encryption actually bringing an investigation to a halt? That’s something Wray won’t talk about, even though he has access to this information.
What CNET charitably calls a “back and forth” conversation between Chris Wray and tech companies is actually nothing more than Wray complaining about encryption and ignoring everything he hears back from the companies that would be affected.
Wray needs to take his anti-encryption ball and go home. Not because I disagree with him, but because the FBI has handled this “conversation” disingenuously since day one. The “going dark” narrative hasn’t been backed by evidence or facts. The FBI misrepresented the number of uncrackable devices it had in its possession for more than three years. Once legislators started demanding proof, the FBI discovered it had no idea how many devices it had on hand.
No further details have been delivered by the FBI, but it’s safe to assume the original estimate of 8-9,000 devices is actually less than a quarter of that. But we don’t know what the actual count is because the FBI has yet to issue an updated number.
The FBI said it would recount the devices and get back to us. As of March 6th, it has been 281 days since the FBI started replacing statements of 8,000+ locked devices with asterisks and footnotes. This is why Wray needs to shut his mouth. Until his agency delivers the real number of locked devices, we don’t need to entertain his anti-encryption dreams. If he and his agency are unwilling to have a real conversation about device encryption — one containing actual facts about locked devices and their impact on investigations — no one should grant him or his comments any credibility.
Filed Under: chris wray, doj, encryption, facts, fbi, going dark
Comments on “FBI Director Chris Wray Needs To Shut The Fuck Up About Encryption”
Works both ways
If the US has access to all encryption here and abroad, stands to reason that so would China and Russia. And North Korea. Anyone that can file a lawful request, right?
Re: Works both ways
Wouldnt that make the FBIs job much more difficult!?
"Until his agency delivers the real number of locked devices, we don’t need to entertain his anti-encryption dreams."
They would…but the guy who’s spreadsheet has those numbers died and the file was password protected.
/s
Re: Re:
Come on, this is the FBI. They don’t use those. Notepads and pencils were good enough for J. Edgar, they’re good enough for everyone.
The data is probably lining the bottom of a parakeet cage somewhere.
Also Free FBI rectal exams
Please step over here and bend over 🙂
One encryption key to access them all
One encryption key to find them
One encryption key for one and all
And in the dark net bind them
Re: Re:
GOD, I wish people would quit posting parodies of that. It’s NOT funny anymore.
One more time...
…the FBI is very careful to NOT say those devices it has seized are encrypted – it’s always "inaccessible".
Probably because most of them were erased, smashed, or submerged.
Why not, as before the Internet and mobile phones much of the Information he wants access to was not recorded because of face to face meeting, but they were no complainants about criminals failing to record their conversations, and so hiding them from investigators.
Re: Re:
Indeed, he’s essentially complaining that it’s possible to have a private conversation, and that The Bad Guys can make use of this to plan/say/do Bad Stuff, ignoring(by accident I’m sure) that that’s always been the case and yet somehow people with badges were able to solve crimes before, and that eliminating the ability to privately communicate will impact everyone, not just The Bad Guys.
Such juvenile language for a "journalist."
Re: Re:
Ridiculous ideas and people are by definition deserving of ridicule, all the more so if they’re dangerous ideas as well.
Unfortunately the exact number of devices they cannot access is encrypted. Once anti-encryption legislation is in place they will magically be able to see that data.
Re: Re:
"Unfortunately the exact number of devices they cannot access is encrypted. Once anti-encryption legislation is in place they will magically be able to see that data."
Fortunately the last encryption war the US had already put paid to that. Once you root your phone and install an open-source system without crippled encryption the anti-encryption legislation becomes meaningless.
And if a law passes which forces OEM’s to gimp the security it will take exactly until the key has leaked and been abused once for EVERYONE to start rooting their phone for exactly this purpose.
Good-bye credibility
Wray’s latest anti-encryption pep talk occurred at the RSA Conference.
Yeah, sorry, but the fact that they invited someone known for his incredibly stupid and dangerous views on security just absolutely tanks their credibility in my eyes. That’s on the level of a gun safety convention inviting someone to speak who believes that the only way to see if a gun is loaded is to hold it by the trigger and look down the barrel.
Actual experts in the field need to stop giving people like him the veneer of fake credibility by acting as though his assertions and beliefs on the matter are even remotely reasonable or not incredibly dangerous. Stop treating him as though his opinion is one worth serious consideration and on equal footing with real security, and start treating him as what he is, a dishonest individual who just so happens to have a badge, putting forth ideas that would undercut the security of millions.
Re: Good-bye credibility
How sure are you that they didn’t invite him for the laugh factor?
Re: Perhaps it's optics?
Maybe they’re afraid that if they don’t do things like this then people like Wray will be able to convince Congress "see, they aren’t even listening to us!". So they keep listening in a very visible way so they can respond "no, see, we are listening".
Re: Re: 'Why WOULD we listen to him, he's clearly unqualified to speak.'
Seems to me a perfect response to that would be to point out that they have no reason to listen to him at this point, as he’s demonstrated willful ignorance at best in refusing to listen when people explain why he’s wrong, if not outright malicious intent in trying to undermine the security of millions.
There’s also a difference between allowing him to come and not only inviting him but inviting him to speak, and for him to object that they didn’t invite him to speak and merely allowed him to show up would leave him looking all sorts of childishly petulant.
Re: Re: Re: 'Why WOULD we listen to him, he's clearly unqualified to spe
Looking childishly petulant doesn’t seem to be and issue with Wray, or any of the others pushing for weakening encryption. They have an agenda, and nothing any of us say will change that agenda. That they have alternatives isn’t part of their perspective. Ease of work, work they shouldn’t have access to re: the 4th Amendment, is.
Re: Re: Re: 'Why WOULD we listen to him, he's clearly unqualified to spe
Isn’t it sort of how we ended up with HTLM5 getting compromised with integrated DRM?
Re: gun safety
Now there’s an oxymoron.
And no, encryption is not like guns. Encryption has constructive uses, guns don’t.
Re: Re: gun safety
Wrong again.
Re: Re: Re: gun safety
I mean, I suppose you could construct something with a gun. If you used it as a hammer or something.
Re: Re: Re:2 gun safety
So your saying defending oneself from a rapist isn’t allowed .
two guys with baseball bats ?
a criminal who already has a gun ?
Just because your afraid of the responsibly of carrying a weapon gives you no right to infringe on my right to carry one .
I’m sure your gated ivory tower and armed guards are keeping you safe at night .
Too bad the rest have to live in reality
Re: Re: Re:3 gun safety
You are looking at it all wrong.
You have to ask yourself in what society do you live in when you feel the need to carry a gun to defend yourself.
Re: Re: Re:4 gun safety
And the corollary with regards to encryption is:
You have to ask yourself in what society do you live in when you feel the need to use encryption to protect your privacy.
Re: Re: Re:5 gun safety
Any society where it is permissible to have private conversations, even over the Internet. As it here is in the US, and some other sovereignty’s.
The FBI, as well as other law enforcement agencies, have the option to conduct their investigations in the same manner as before the existence of the Internet. Those methods were effective before (and it is a certainty that communications that were not privy to law enforcement took place) and could be now. That they choose not to is not our problem, it is theirs.
Re: Re: Re:5 gun safety
" And the corollary with regards to encryption is:"
"You have to ask yourself in what society do you live in when you feel the need to use encryption to protect your privacy."
The same society where you close and lock a toilet door despite the fact that nothing illegal or shameful is likely to be happening inside.
Or, for that matter, a society where we wear clothes and talk quietly to our significant others when discussing private issues like, say, a love life or the home budget.
Anyone who asks the question why we’d want encryption is by logical extension also delivering the argument "Why wear clothes if you have nothing to hide?"
Re: Re: Re:6 gun safety
You are missing the point. The examples you gave has nothing to do with protecting yourself – they are just examples of good manners in our culture.
The point was that if you feel forced to employ encryption to protect yourself and your privacy against bad actors (private or governments), what kind of society do you live in that foster that reaction.
Which was not what I said, I questioned (in a roundabout way) why we need encryption as it stands right now – not why we would want it. The answers are different and both answers has little to do with "nothing to hide".
Re: Re: Re:7 gun safety
"Which was not what I said, I questioned (in a roundabout way) why we need encryption as it stands right now – not why we would want it. The answers are different and both answers has little to do with "nothing to hide"."
Mea Maxima Culpa. I should have formulated my answer differently as well.
The reason we need encryption isn’t just because of overreaching vested interests bent on building registry lists and using whatever data they can harvest.
There is a societal need to have private things remaining private. Even in a world where we had no organizations trying to actively mine and use our data I’d still argue that we need encryption.
It’s basic human psychology. The urge to exclude strangers from the private sphere is arguably a need, even if it isn’t a necessity in response to a potential threat.
A society where privacy is not allowed is a society where mental disorders becomes a norm rather than an exception.
Re: Re: Re:7 gun safety
Are you serious? Did you miss the last several centuries or something?
re: if you feel forced to employ encryption to protect yourself and your privacy against bad actors (private or governments), what kind of society do you live in
WE are all living in a spy infused cultural millieu of predatory capitalist corporate systems, backed by privacy rapists at NSA-FVEYs-Google-Microsoft-Israel, regardless of what the official party line is.
Did you miss Edward Snowden’s memo?
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-china-cyber/snowden-affair-blunts-u-s-push-for-china-to-curb-cyber-theft-idUSBRE96713220130709
And cops are kicking down peoples doors to get at their hard drives-does that strike you as a bit tone deaf on your part, or…?
Re: Re: Re:4 gun safety
Sorry that bird flew the coop when adam bit the apple
And I don’t think we’re going back anytime soon
So till then If you feel that protecting yourself is morally wrong
Good for you , Just don’t impose your beliefs on me .
Not all people are inherently good Just ask those bicyclists over in the middle east ….Yea they believed the whole world is a good place and nothing bad ever happens …till it does and it did
Re: Re: Re:3 gun safety
"So your saying defending oneself from a rapist isn’t allowed ."
Easy on the straw man there.
What the man said was that a gun has no constructive use. In this he is correct. A gun is a weapon expressly designed to be destructive. Whether its use is in selfdefense or unwarranted does not change the fact that a gun can’t be used constructively by its very nature.
An axe is also a weapon but can be used for chopping wood. What would you construct, build or create using a gun as a tool?
At best a gun can keep something from being destroyed by destroying the threat first. That still isn’t constructive.
Re: Re: Re:4 gun safety
What would you construct, build or create using a gun as a tool?
Most Nations of the world today?
Re: Re: Re:5 gun safety
Forgot this link to Hilti as well.
https://www.hilti.ca/content/hilti/W1/CA/en/services/power-tools/fastening-systems/powder-actuated-systems.html
Re: Re: Re:5 gun safety
" What would you construct, build or create using a gun as a tool? Most Nations of the world today?"
Nope. Shooting and intimidating everyone who dissents with you is NOT "constructive". Taking from others is not considered constructive. Every nation today was created by diplomacy…in some cases, after guns had been used to destroy everything in opposition.
Using a gun you can, at best, destroy that which would destroy you. A gun – or other technology exclusively intended to destroy – can make sure you lose less. It can’t be used to gain anything at all, save by using the weapon to take from others.
So back to my original statement – a gun can be used for protection, but it can never be used constructively. Like a nuke or grenade the tool has exactly one use only – to destroy.
Re: Re: Re:3 gun safety
Thank you for clearly labeling your strawman.
Re: Re: Re: gun safety
Lawrence’s Law:
The word "gun" cannot appear in any conversation without Lawrence D’ Oliveiro shitposting all over it.
Re: Re: Grandma to burglar:
‘You come any further and you’re a dead SOB.’
Gwendolyn Agard, 79 years old, defended her home from a burglar with her two pistols.
https://www.11alive.com/article/news/local/grandma-to-burglar-you-come-any-further-and-youre-a-dead-sob/85-e790ffa8-1e0d-4b1c-af06-d64df1231527
Re: Re: gun safety
Does your Country have an army? Do they use guns? Is protecting you and your Country constructive or destructive?
Re: Re: Re: gun safety
"Does your Country have an army? Do they use guns? Is protecting you and your Country constructive or destructive?"
Go read a dictionary. "Constructive" and "Dsetructive" are words with definite meaning.
An army, if deployed, is destructive. It kills. It may kill in defense, it may kill to prevent greater loss of life.
It will NEVER be able to be "constructive" using guns, unless you take those guns and beat them into plowshares first.
Similarly you may use a gun to prevent loss. But this end will be accomplished by destruction or threat of destruction.
The one and only way you can use a gun to end up with more resources than you initially had is by intimidating someone and taking it from them.
A gun is a killing tool. Use of which may be necessary when facing others with similar tools and/or ill intent. But at the end of the day the onhe and only real use a gun has is to kill and destroy, or threaten to do the same. There’s no getting around that.
That’s not creative or constructive. No dual use. No gray area. No middle ground. Guns are destructive, not constructive.
"You see, we’re deeply concerned Americans destroy written documentation by throwing it away, shredding, burning or otherwise making illegible. Therefore all manner of writing instrument and surface will be available only at an FBI office. That is the only way we can be certain law enforcement can build their case."
The ultimate litmus test—walk the walk
Anyone advocating for less/weak encryption should have it applied to all of their own accounts (email, phone, banking, investments…) for a trial year. It’ll be fun to see completely F—ed their lives become and whether or not they thing strong encryption is really a good idea.
Re: The ultimate litmus test—walk the walk
Would love it..
But those responsible for it, dont even want it..BECAUSE…
Because why?? FOIA requests squashed, for what reasons??
for a nation that wants to KNOW what is happening in the gov. we Still wont get permission to know..
But, lets watch the Aussie’s and see what happens.. Lets see how far they let it go, any politicians volunteer?? Any CORPS ?? Any police stations??
Giving Access has many meanings. including being able to ADD/REMOVE things….remember that.
Re: Re: The ultimate litmus test—walk the walk
let me add..
What could/would anyone look at…??
CC#, SS#, Bank accounts??
I would love all this info to be made public..REALLY,..
Know why?
because the banks could not prove/disprove my use.. Run out and Break the bank…and blame it on lost data…
So go for it, let it happen.
Known facts...
FACT: ENCRYPTION IS USED FOR CRIMINAL INTENTIONS!!!
FACT: ENCRYPTION MAKES THINGS HARDER TO READ
FACT: IF WE MAKE IT ILLEGAL TO MAKE ENCRYPTION TO BE AVAILABLE WITHOUT A
BACK DOOR, OBVIOUSLY THAT WOULD BE THE LINE A CRIMINAL WOULDN’T
CROSS
FACT: I USED A LOT OF CAPS TO MAKE THIS SAD JOKE
Sorry…
IF' this was a perfect world....
I would not mind, NOT using encryption…
It could do some good, by speeding many things up.
BUT,
With the corps trying to grab out data..
With Insurance agencies Wishing they knew more about us..
With all the crap floating around..
How many phone calls a day would you Love to have..
If the Gov. could do a few things like GET THE SALES CALLS OFF MY PHONE.. Kill the SPAM..
It might be worth a try.
But encryption has many uses, including
Making BIG packets of data, Faster..
Making SURE your data goes to You and not 10,000 others that are standing around you.
And even IF’; those other 10,000 do get your data, they can read/use/hear it…
Also, this is abit of BS…as the Stingray system can pickup most of what they want.. nad all they need to is connect to the signal YOU are sending and relay it to the cell towers.. Man-in-the-middle attack. Which means they would need allot of units to track allot of people..
For some reason they just dont get the idea of how much DATA/VOICE is sent just with Cellphones, then add into this all the chat programs, In game chats, Forums, and so forth.. They could not get thru All this data in a fast enough time to stop much of anything..
i know, lets go check out that Building they installed in UTAH, and see how they are doing.
In my opinion, they would need one of these installations at every interconnect from Each Major corp system connected to the net. Which I think, is about 7..
Because you cant SIT, ‘here’ and gather info ‘over there’ very easily, without cooperation from those interconnections between the different Main server connections.. it would be so redundant as to double/triple the amount of data running around, to SLOW done most of the net..
PS.. The Aussie gov. Passed the law to Backdoor the nation.
Re: IF' this was a perfect world....
Aussie backdoor..
What are the odds…
Politicians DONT have backdoors? they will Import routers without it.
that some Geek, will get he code and Try to get into others systems??
That the Corps will TRY to not let Others into the system, and will Bitch at the gov. to let them..
having a Code for every box to every person in the nation is going to be to hard, or force the ISP’s to do tha paper work..
Or, the gov will be stupid, and make 1 code for everyone..
(if you didnt knwo the USA military makes 1 key to fit everything, and 1 code for most computer devices, and well as 1 dongle to let the men USE those devices..)(fun aint it)
"Wray believes the only way the FBI and other agencies will ever keep up with criminals is to do away with encryption."
But they do not even try to "keep up" with criminals, we know this for a fact. They look the other way when it is their guys doing it, so the bullshit excuse holds no water as they are not trying to keep up with criminals … they are trying to keep up with the growing tide of disillusionment among the masses and its resulting wave of unrest which will be seen in the 2020 elections. This is what they are afraid of.
I don’t care if they have a million devices they can’t unlock or if they really are going dark. Just say NO to any "limits" on encryption.
We ABSOLUTELY need encryption
Of course we need it. It’s in the constitution – the 28th amendment. That’s the encrypted one, the one encrypted by B. Franklin. Here’s the actual text:
832ndouhcu9ay7hri23ndih8dhq3ouindiph80qwj3dij3idjw80h79eucneakmipscuheijqwixjuwhcuaicjaidjwqijd931dj9-2jdiwJCIAHCUEABUDNWidjiwqjd8q3jd92j9e38ry732yr8jdiwjipwnciadncipdmncidajcieajf8ehf8qjd9qjwdicajcipmaicmeijviewjf8whf8qjd9-j3q9ei0=ie0lml934837536823j2ihnjlnjl3nrejnbuosh79chuoasnduqed8031jskNJOUDHUWHDWIQJDIPWQHDUQWND
Re: We ABSOLUTELY need encryption
Well, if you apply the key "LightningRodHardon" it reads like a familiar poem:
Franklin, tho`plagued with fumbling age
Needs nothing to excite him.
But is too ready to engage
When younger arms invite him.
In the letter, which was entitled "Advice to a Young Man on the Choice of a Mistress," Franklin advised: "In all your Amours, you should prefer old Women to young ones." He goes on to explain that with older women they tend to have more discretion, will take care of you when you’re sick, are cleaner than prostitutes, and that "there is no hazard of children." He also offered that you can’t really tell who’s old or young when you’re in the dark.
A quick show of hands, please....
… for those of you who have ever encountered a public news report wherein a law enforcement agency claims to have averted a major crime, thanks to reading the contents of a phone. Haven’t seen anything yet, but perhaps I’m getting a bit blind in my old age….
And insofar as I’m concerned, Wray (and any successors) can speak up all he wants. Not for the amusement value, but to keep the topic of why we have encryption in the first place on the front burner. Better to know what the other side is thinking/whining about, than to suddenly wake up one morning, only to find that they serruptitiously passed a new law that we now have to fight over in court.
sumgai
Re: A quick show of hands, please....
DONT ask the CIA or FBI..
They will lie thru their teeth.
After instigating al the crap in this country, and others.
As soon as the first criminal is found hiding in a cell phone, or even trying to sneak into a cell phone, I will accept anything this dude says as true.
Until then, I reserve the right to have reservations.
Re: Re:
"As soon as the first criminal is found hiding in a cell phone, or even trying to sneak into a cell phone, I will accept anything this dude says as true."
Wray’s response will be that you can’t prove there ISN’T a criminal hiding in someones phone. You also can’t prove there isn’t a teapot orbiting mars.
Re: Re:
well,
Considering the spam, 3rd party adverts sucking your power, and the NEW hacking thats happening, more virus and bots insode your phone Might fit the bill.
Even google got tired of it,and Eliminated 1000’s of apps.
What would such a law actualy say?
Maybe we should try to help Mr. Wray out by writing a good law for him that could gain bi-partisan support regarding encryption. How about this:
From this day forward, every Citizen of the World must communicate only in plain easily understood language, BCC copied first to the FBI, and any attempt to disguise any message or meaning contained within any communication shall be punished by a fine of no less than $1,000,000,000 and no less than 100 years in prison.
nerd harder
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/03/05/fbi_china_warning/ :
So nothing really to worry about, we just need to nerd harder.
Re: nerd harder
There may well be a way to combine strong encryption and lawful intercepts he said, if people are willing to put their heads together.
You gotta love the gross, blatant dishonesty of the argument, where when he says ‘put their heads together’ what he actually means is ‘stop telling me I’m wrong and do what I want them to’.
He and those like him aren’t interested in an honest discussion, all they’re interested in hearing is whatever they already believe to be true.
How Many Is Irrelevant
"But how many times is encryption actually bringing an investigation to a halt?"
I am entirely tired of this ill-considered question. It is distracting and irrelevant to the discussion. Asking the question implies that there is SOME number of times that might constitute a critical mass to justify backdooring encryption. Quit that…please.
Having encryption thwart police authorities in every case ever would not justify the abridgments of our rights to employ encryption the cops seek.
Upping the encryption game.
Upping the encryption game;
Encrypt harder. Encrypt more. Encrypt everything you possibly can.
Re: Upping the encryption game.
Not bad, but let me add this to your proposal:
For years I’ve added the words "Guns, Bombs, President" to my tagline. I feel strongly that if everyone did this, every time they were about to hit "Send", then the State Surveillance would crack apart soon enough.
Encrypt everything else, but leave those three words in plain text – that’ll keep ‘me up nights!
sumgai
FBI
Lead by example?
Just try to replace "criminals" with any other noun.