FBI boss: 'Memories are not absolutely private in America' FBI director James Comey has told a cybersecurity conference that any communications – be it with your spouse, your priest, or your lawyer – and any of your memories are up for grabs should a court order it. Speaking at the Boston Cyber Security Summit, Comey said that America's founding fathers had set down that there is a …
@man who fell...
Such a witness can then be branded as unreliable by lawyers for the other side, thus weakening somebody's case. Actions or inactions have consequences.
We live in organised societies that are more then just a bunch of selfish individuals. So individuals do not have absolute freedom. In common law states - Britain and USA - there is a common law duty to assist in mantaining law and order.
@ Primus
I've been in enough courtrooms to know that a witnesses incentives don't necessarily align with either side all of the time. While a witness (in the US) can take the 5th claiming the right not to self-incriminate, there's a whole boatload of witness questions where the 5th is clearly not applicable yet a witness might not want to answer. The only way out is to say they don't recall, as no one can prove they do recall, even if later in their testimony their "memory comes back".
> a witness who does not want to testify can always say "I don't recall."
Yeah, I remember the case of one witness (perpetrator, even) who famously said that. A certain Lt Colonel of the US Marine Corps, in the 1980s, by the name of Oliver North.
Side note: My late wife was, at that time, enlisted in the US Air Force (I have had a complicated life. Don't ask.) She had a couple of observations on the subject of Olly North:
* In the USAF, the coverage of North's testimony before the Congressional committee made popular viewing.
* While the Air Force enlisted and the Marine Corps enlisted don't really get on well, it was clear that the USMC rank and file were deeply ashamed of one of their senior officers standing up in his dress uniform and putting on such a spectacle.
Well actually there were two hearings, both televised.
Hearing one, a sweating North said he could not speak in public about his part in things.
Hearing two, a spiffily dressed Col. North in his dress uniform (all he was missing was a bull terrier on a leash sitting by his feet) proudly announced that he would only speak in front of the American public.
I know because I was very sick at the time and only had a TV with rabbit ears.
It also works in Denmark. A politician (Viggo Fischer) answered "I don't remember that" or "I do not recall that" (in Danish) 107 times during an investigation, in oder to protect his superior.
- to which the judge remarked: What a shame such a young man already suffers from dementia!
...for Mr. Comey.
Given that you believe that no communication, verbal, electronic or otherwise, and in extrapolation no communicated thought, feeling or memory, is a protected characteristic of a citizens rights, what, precisely, is your agency protecting?
If you dare answer with the word liberty once again then you need to do some hard thinking about what that, and similar terms, actually mean.
In the interim might I suggest you get a big tarpaulin, sling it over the statue in the harbor (you've forgotten about it, haven't you?) and pop a sign on it that says "Out of Order" until further notice.
Wake up, re-read the constitution, examine your history and remember who you actually want to be.
If you are a chief security officer and don't know your local FBI officer then you're failing at your job
No, I don't believe so. As a security officer my job is to ensure that the systems are secure, not to play patty-cake with the political appointee of the week. If I have something to turn over or have to interface with law enforcement, then my contact is local law enforcement not Federal. It is up to the local guys and gals to determine whether the Feds need to be brought in - not me. If they do, the locals still continue to act as the information conduit anyways.
Does he believe that the converse also true - that any FBI officer that doesn't know all of the private security officers isn't doing THEIR job?
Oh they KNOW you... you might not know that they're watching, but they are
Evidence suggests if you're a technical C-level then at least one of NSA/GCHQ do and have considered if you'll be usable as a target in future or current operations for sure. Read the emails from the Gamalto stuff, scary shit for technicals. Always wear protection.
This post has been deleted by its author
"... Comey said that America's founding fathers had set down that there is a right to privacy but that the government has a right to intrude in the name of security. It was part of a 200-year old "bargain of ordered liberty," he opined ..."
"Freedom of speech is a principal pillar of a free government; when this support is taken away, the constitution of a free society is dissolved, and tyranny is erected on its ruins." - Benjamin Franklin, 1737
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Benjamin Franklin, 1755
Freedom to speak or to assemble isn't a right to privacy. That's the fundamental problem here.
US constitution doesn't guarantee a right to privacy. Not saying it's right but there's no explicit right recognised by the document. It's an enormous problem because if that right isn't guaranteed to US citizens there's no hope that the US government would acknowledge there's a right for non-US citizens.
There is an implied and limited right that's badly codified for the modern world which is how they can get away with saying things like this because they are technically, legally, correct. These arguments have to be fought by statute law and by things like the right not to be searched illegally - the right to privacy in memory only exists to the degree that one's memory can't be illegally searched. Just wait till they can search your memory directly and a court can issue a warrant on that - it'll be a fun day.
Fourth Amendment isn't a right to privacy in explicit terms. It's a right not to have your person searched or say a server that belongs to you - and a warrant can break through that right if it's legally gained. You asked this whilst I was still mid thought stream on my original comment, see the edited version where I covered this.
The only thing that stands between that right and you being searched is probably cause, which is a very low bar. Lets not even get started on exigent circumstances in times of terrorist attack fears.
The difference between memories and social media/phones/servers/email is that memories are not covered by the Fourth Amendment. The FBI cannot seize your memories, and while you can be compelled to divulge them, you always have the following options;
- Say you don't remember.
- Misrepresent what you remember.
- Omit parts of what you remember.
- Lie about what you remember.
So it's a very misleading comparison. Memories are easy to keep private.
Until you're faced with a perjury charge. Remember the oath you must take before you testify: the truth, the WHOLE truth, and NOTHING BUT the truth. You lie (outright or by omission--half the truth, twice the lie as they say) at your own peril because they could have ways to back up their claims that don't necessarily involve you.
"Remember the oath you must take before you testify: the truth, the WHOLE truth, and NOTHING BUT the truth. "
I always found this a little odd. In practice one can only respond to counsels' questions. One of the tricks of a cross-examiner is to ask a question which framed to call for a yes/no answer but which, for the whole truth, requires a more discursive answer - which the cross-examiner then tries to suppress. I've also been in the odd situation of being, in effect, cross-examined by the side that called me in an attempt to make me put a stronger construction on my evidence than I considered reasonable.
@streaky
Freedom of speech also implies a freedom to not speak as compelled speech isn't free. It's one thing that always bothered me about the court system and its ability to compel a person to testify under threat of loss of liberty or fine. Further, considering how any such statements would, by definition, be made under duress I don't see how a jury can apply any real weight to that testimony.
To your later point, you're absolutely right they will pull it directly from your head the instant they are able and likely without regard as to whether it does any damage to you or the memories or how reliable those memories might have been in the first place. I can see them going to great lengths to "enhance" the extracted memory to better understand in the same way they are always "enhancing" pictures in the cop shows.
"US constitution doesn't guarantee a right to privacy. Not saying it's right but there's no explicit right recognised by the document."
However, in Roe vs Wade, the Supreme Court has ruled that the Constitution's First, Fourth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual's "zone of privacy".
Arguably, the right to privacy is implicit in the constitutional enumeration of things the government may or may not do and the structure in which they may do it. That begins with the preamble and includes, notably, Article I, sections VIII and IX, and is reiterated and reinforced by the tenth amendment and, in the case of search and seizure, the fourth amendment.
The legislature often has taken an expansive view of government authority, always for what is thought at the time to be a good purpose. The resulting laws have not always worked out well, or as intended; legislators are people, and people are fallible. Legal authority for search and seizure may exceed what some think reasonable, but it is not obvious that a right to privacy, however defined, should be considered absolute.
The full text was quite common on the signatures of emails on the 12th of September 2001.
He and his ilk don't want a world free of crime.
They want a world free of due process where they can read what they like, when they like and store it forever.
This is the data fetishists manifesto.
"Give me 6 lines from an honest man, and I will find something with which to hang him."
Yet the same Benjamin Franklin presided over the Constitutional Convention. In the process, the tradeoff between government authority and personal liberties was one of the core issues, despite the fact that explicit statement of some rights and liberties was deferred to the Bill of Rights.
Come back and talk to me when you've repealed the 1st, 5th and 14th amendments. Then maybe I can introduce you to the 2nd.
Governments, and their hack appointees, are all well and good when they're on your side doing what you think you want them to do, but it's easy to get on their wrong side and every few years you might be passing that weapon of mass intrusion onto some incompetent man-baby to play with like a live grenade.
As a Brit, I like our way of doing things.
THEY make the laws but WE decide whether to obey those laws.
Germans have a very different attitude. Germans have said to me, the law is the law and should be obeyed. Somehow the USA has taken up that German position rather than the English one. Revolutionary animus, perhaps.
"In other news, a notorious leader of a wife-beating syndicate has stated that he blames the rise of martial arts defense courses for women on their ability to be able to speak and let others know they are being beaten. He proposes that all women should have an 'off' switch for their tongues."
>FTFY.... I'm not seeing any adult conversation from any part of it right now.
I'm wondering if they meant a different kind of "adult" conversation.
For how much longer can US federal agencies keep up the charade? The BBC reports, "On Wednesday, the US officials - who spoke on the condition of anonymity - told US media that the criminal investigation was looking into how the files came into Wikileaks' possession."
How do they keep a straight face when they complain that telling people about security failures which makes them less secure, results in a criminal investigation? If the FBI and CIA know these problems, what makes you think the Russians and Chinese don't? What about all those TV's in hotel suites diplomats and industry executives might be frequenting? Did you sweep for bugs? Yes, but there's little which can be done about the hardwired TV which is always on... and listening.
I could go ranting on here.
@Blofeld's Cat - thanks - those need to be left about to read.
@ scrubber and AGDyer - again, clear points needed.
@ ElReg -> https://forums.theregister.co.uk && upvote.
Encryption. Effective. Real. Exceptionally difficult to brute force. This is an absolute requirement in this world, for *all sorts* of reasons.
No, we DO NOT need a central key exchange where we can drop off a copy for (choose relevant TLA of the week) to have handy. There are in *most* countries *already* in place simple effective laws that can be used to acquire keys, *and* relevant, appropriate penalties to deal with those that cannot or will not hand those keys over. They may not be obviously stated or clearly aligned with "The Internet Age", but the basic principle of law exists.
Outside of *that* Mr Comey (or whatever twat this month decides to jump on that bus), I have no intention of letting you at my personal inventory of "data".
Encryption. Effective. Real. Exceptionally difficult to brute force. This is an absolute requirement in this world, for *all sorts* of reasons.
But it's also something that you don't want the bad guys to be able to hide behind.
That's the dilemma facing us all. Law enforcement tends to be the ones going on about it because they're the people we pay to deal with the bad guys on our behalf. Most of us don't encounter the worst of nasties that the criminal classes throw at the world, the cops do.
There's no good answer. It's an impossible problem to solve. It will most likely result in the equivalents of the Great Firewall of China being put up everywhere, and that's probably a bad thing.
"Most of us don't encounter the worst of nasties that the criminal classes throw at the world, the cops do."
Maybe not most but I can claim to be one of the ones that did, and that in the middle of a terror campaign (and partly funded by US citizens unchallenged, AFAIK, by their government).
My main take-away from that? The importance of the presumption of innocence and due process of law. Why? Because they're some of the main things that distinguish between terrorism and a free, lawful society.
Untrammelled surveillance, especially mass surveillance, is the antithesis of these.
It is statements like this that make me want to encrypt all my cookie recipes with the strongest encryption I can find. I then will include the files as an attachments in e-mails I send everywhere and let the FBI spend their time trying to decrypt the files.
What part of the 5th Amendment doesn't this guy get? A judge can attempt to compel one to testify, one invokes the 5th and a stand-off ensues. Then, at worst, you get held indefinitely for contempt. I'm okay with that. You still won't get my encryption keys and good luck with the devices.
So far, we are not legally required to have government mandated back doors. Perhaps that will happen, someday. Even should that come to pass, I can design and build my devices from scratch, and thus the stand-off would continue as I still won't give you access, Mr. Comey. What part of engineer don't you understand? Guess what type of systems get my attention these days?
In civil cases you can. And you can agree to testify against yourself as part of a plea bargain or immunity agreement.
But in general court, no you can't understand the fifth amendment. You also don't have to answer questions from cops beyond your name, address, workplace, etc. In fact traffic officers will often ask you "Do you know how fast you are going, in order to get you to admit you were speeding. You can answer that with something like "I don't think I want to discuss that", and you are perfectly fine doing so.
> (Instagram) He said he likes that privacy, but would open up the account if compelled to do so under the law.
Except, what would happen is that Instagram would get the secret order demanding access, he'd (as a citizen) wouldn't know because Instagram would be compelled to not tell him.
OTOH, if the court did actually compel *him* to provide access, well that seems reasonable.
And, not forgetting that all the TLA/FLA agencies around the world already have access via their dragnets.
Who interfered in an election? Potentially* aiding and abetting a hostile foreign power? Who is now probably regretting that**? Comey doesn't exactly come across as credible. At that level, reputation really is everything, and I'm not seeing much of a reputation here.
* One would hope inadvertently.
** And who is now having to deal with an unpredictable boss prone to making completely unsubstantiated accusations about Comey's former boss?
"And who is now having to deal with an unpredictable boss"
They probably deserve each other although I'd have expected his boss to have sacked him as untrustworthy by now. Maybe the only thing stopping him is the thought that finely tuned machines can't lose major components at quite that rate.
It is very rare for a president to fire the head of the FBI. They are appointed for 10 year terms specifically to prevent them from being a political appointment like the Attorney General. Obviously it is too late to fire him now that the cat is out of the bag about the investigation into Russian influence in the election also encompassing Trump campaign/administration staff talking with Russians, and the potential for collusion that would almost certainly lead to impeachment also being looked at.
It would make him look extremely guilty if he fired Comey and tried to appoint someone new, likely insuring that a few republicans would go along with democrats in blocking such a nomination to prevent his appointee subverting the investigation - as well as pretty much guarantee an independent prosecutor would be appointed (which I think will probably happen anyway before long, as the deputy AG if/when confirmed can't be expected to conduct a fair investigation that includes his boss)
In the long run Trump is probably better off leaving Comey in place, as he can claim he's not getting a fair investigation because the guy running it was appointed by Obama. His supporters will eat that up.
"[...]and Comey expects the competitive aspect to lead to improvements in skills and conviction rates."
Once you introduce competition into law enforcement you encourage people to bend the law to get their brownie points and career advancement. After all - they just instinctively know someone is guilty - so fabricating some evidence isn't a problem - is it?
To beat these threats the FBI is trying to get better skills by recruiting from the outside. The Feds are looking for people with the right skills, physical fitness, and integrity. There's no point hiring someone who's a whiz at computing and fit enough to pack heat if they "smoke weed on the way to the interview," he joked.
The old adage ..."If you can't beat them, join them" ..... springs to mind, and that would be creating a difficulty for the Feds with their anti-weed position, for it may very well be the stealthy enemy they do battle against both within and without, and which is running rings around them and enlightening the masses with their progress in oppressive and regressive shenanigans.
Is it true that USAF pilots on active war duty are fed methamphetamine to function appropriately on missions/sorties?
"Top of the list was nation state hackers, he said, followed closely by international professional hacking groups that worked for money"
This is probably quite true, and he deserves some credit for putting terrorists at the bottom of the list on the reasonable grounds they have not (yet) achieved very much in 'cyberspace' actions.
But those top two in particular would make mincemeat of any backdoor or key escrow system and he really needs to get that point. Corporate/organisation-wide master keys simply don't scale to the government's desire because (a) nobody trusts them now, and (b) it would make everyone's device less secure when its found, not just a few hundred in any one department.
Defending the USA (or any other country's own) government and businesses interests means you need strong security, properly applied. Yes, it might make catching the odd smart criminal a touch harder, but it leads to less crime overall.
"would make everyone's device less secure when its found, not just a few hundred in any one department."
There are options between "a few hundred" and "everyone" that would resolve that particular issue. Considering those might be part of an adult debate. You could, for example, hold master keys per-person and per-use case on paper in a bank vault. The FBI would only be granted access to a specific person and a specific product by the bank when ordered by a court. That's close to how paper mail interception works. It would be possible for a few thousand to be compromised by a bank robbery, but not everyone.
I'm sure you can pick holes in that, it's just one idea I had in 30 seconds, but there is scope for discussion *if* the tech community wants to.
You can argue that privacy should be absolute - and that's a reasonable position too - but it's probably not one that the majority will agree to; insert obligatory "think of the children" argument here. Or even should the FBI be allowed to decrypt the communications of Russian spies? Even so, we have to engage with the debate and explain why, not just sling personal insults.
The comments here disparaging the honesty of FBI agents aren't really helpful. Or grounded in evidence.
(My downvoted stat is about to rocket!)
You have a good point that there are various options, but none are scalable for tens of millions of devices sold to the public and not managed by some competent trusted IT group.
However, one approach that would answer some of the criticism is to make the cryptographic key stored in the chips in such a way that you could gain physical access by grinding down the package and using a scanning electron microscope to read it. The advantages of this approach are:
1) You need physical access, so its not a remote hack that anyone can pull off. Thus there is no master key to be leaked or shared with undesirables[*].
2) It is expensive and destructive, so you need a good targeted reason to use it. That puts it beyond trawling for evidence, and out of the reach of common criminals.
3) The customers of said phones, etc, largely have put faith in not losing the device, and if lost, it is not in the hands of a highly resourced thief, rather than a company that might be pressured to share master keys with practically every government and police organisation in the world.
[*] undesirables may vary, check your country and current political climate for the recent list.
"Any of us can be compelled – in appropriate circumstances"
Action have consequences - if you decide not to tell (or decrypt) then based on the law of the land (or lack of it) you face the legal consequences - in a benign western society, that is jail for contempt of court.
Lots of examples of journalists who have done just that.
The problem comes when the society is not benign, then our problems are bigger anyway.
However the solution is NOT backdooring the encryption....
There is no need for debate so I don't care which side you're on. And please forgive my shouting, but thick heads and all that;
PROHIBITION DOES NOT WORK!
You only make criminals of otherwise law abiding people, as real criminals ignore the law you fucking morons. But hey, think how safe the world will be [and good your stats will look] when you catch the otherwise law abiding breaking your ridiculous laws in an effort for some security from an actual threat.
/rant
Agreed, it's not the absolute bottom of the list yet, but for me personally it's dropped way below the "bottom of western nations" position. Countries which have gone for full dictatorship (e.g. N. Korea) or are an active warzone (e.g. Syria) still rank below them, but that's about it.
Pity really, I'd have liked to have seen the US some day. It can join Turkey on my list of places not to visit until they become civilised again (Turkey brings me particular sorrow, as an earlier visit to Istanbul was my favorite city break by quite a long way).
You think I'm stupid for thinking european privacy law is stronger than it is in america? Wow.
It *would* be stupid to think that privacy in europe isn't under threat too, but I didn't see the point of getting into that.
Also, most countries tend to treat rights as a universal thing for citizens and non citizens alike. Oddly, where rights are concerned America thinks it's OK to treat foreigners as subhumans.
Um, Mr Comey, I do believe that at least priests are not going to agree with you.
And, as far as blaming Snowden, that is just shooting the messenger.
In a way, it is comical how these types keep trying the same argument, and blaming everyone else for not "playing along". It doesn't matter that you want a backdoor, Comey, what matters is that if we admit that you do get an encryption scheme that has your precious FBI/NSA/CIA/MI5/KGB-enabled backdoor, everyone in the world will migrate to an encryption scheme that does not have one.
Of course, at that point I fully believe that you will shout at everyone to obey US law. Good luck with that.
"In a way, it is comical how these types keep trying the same argument, and blaming everyone else for not "playing along". It doesn't matter that you want a backdoor, Comey, what matters is that if we admit that you do get an encryption scheme that has your precious FBI/NSA/CIA/MI5/KGB-enabled backdoor, everyone in the world will migrate to an encryption scheme that does not have one."
Until you realize that the ones that don't have backdoors they probably can break almost trivially if they really need to. Not even post-quantum algorithms are all that safe, given the current research into it. Even the one-time pad has physical weaknesses that can be exploited (just catch the bloke with the pad in hand).
Nonsense.
As the CIA dump demonstrates, the move to PFS and end-to-end, properly implemented strong crypto has forced LEA and spooks to focus on pwning the endpoints (in the CIA case, with the assistance of physical access, which is /extremely/ expensive and dangerous to carry out and can obviously only be carried out against individual named targets and their immediate associates.
If there was a break in AES, say, there'd be no market for 0day among spooks and LEA, would there.
Kapish?
> Until you realize that the ones that don't have backdoors they probably can break almost trivially if they really need to.
Even if that is or proves to be the case, it still requires them to do some work and commit resources rather than just using their backdoor to decrypt anything and everything at a whim.
Having something that might have weaknesses (but also might not) is still better than something which might also share those weaknesses but also has a major weakness deliberately designed in.
"Um, Mr Comey, I do believe that at least priests are not going to agree with you."
IIRC a tactic used by an abusive priest was to tell his superior in the confessional box. This apparently ensured that the superior could do nothing about it.
That line threw a huge ("YUUUGE!") Bullshit flag in my mind. Given that conversations with your priest and lawyer are Privileged Communications, and are not available via warrant or subpoena. And whilst your mail/phone calls with your spouse may be subpoenaed, your spouse cannot be compelled to testify against you(and vice versa).
Fucking Hypocrite
--he issued a stern warning against companies hacking back against attackers.
"Don't do it, it's a crime,"--
Only the CIA are allowed to do this without it being considered a crime apparently.
That's an interesting point of view. I've just the one question: what the fuck are you about? Are you objecting to the existence of police, LEA and intelligence services that are allowed to do things that are illegal for ordinary citizens? If so, give me a moment to strap in and then ... OK.... let me have it.
WHY??
"Are you objecting to the existence of police, LEA and intelligence services that are allowed to do things that are illegal for ordinary citizens?"
I was calling him a hypocrite. However, I do object in this instance because it will lead chaos, not order.
"WHY??"
Because "police, LEA and intelligence services" *are* "ordinary citizens".
'Because "police, LEA and intelligence services" *are* "ordinary citizens".'
I've always been of the view that the Police should have the same powers, no more or less, as any other citizen. I think I'm in a minority of roughly one! It would also require substantial financial investment.
In privacy debates people often ask if you want to be private from your family, your colleagues, the Police or the spies; for a lot of people there's no difference between the groups.
(1) how can this be news to anyone? (Has no-one heard of Scott McNealy?)
(2) How and why can/does anyone think it's a bad idea that law enforcement and spooks have the ability to carry out covert surveillance? Do you actually WANT to be blown up or taken over by the next aggressive nationalist dictatorship or have major organised criminals acting with complete impunity? (Sure, tehre are plenty of crooks who should be in jail who aren't. Throwing away tools that enable the conviction of some of them isn't going to help, though, it's only going to make things worse.)
*toc *toc *toc.
... a small modification:
"Comey said that America's founding fathers had set down that there is a right to (bear arms) but that the government has a right to intrude in the name of security. It was part of a 200-year old "bargain of ordered liberty," he opined ..."
Now who thinks _that_ bird would fly very far in the US of A? And if it wouldn't, then why should his comment on 'privacy'?
Oh, bugger it. If (or rather, when) the howling masses let this sort of stuff happen, we really are our own worst enemies. Sigh...
Yeah, yeah, drug dealers, terrorists, pedophiles. Granted that these are nasty folks and we would like to curtail their nefarious activities. But how many of us or our families have been affected by such people? I know of some pedo cases, and every one was a family member or friend, not a stranger stalking from Facebook. As horrible as the 9/11 attacks were, it caused a few thousand deaths out of three hundred million citizens. We lose ten thousand people every year to DUI and another 300,000 injured. 300,000 sexual crimes annually and the shattered lives those often leave. If we're going to get all authoritative to protect people, let's focus on the things causing major problems for us all and not a handful of boogeymen.
9/11 was in many ways the high point of world terrorism, and has not been rivaled in 16 years. In that same time, multiple government entities have violated our rights in every way they could find. The utter disregard of our rights is blatant and unapologetic. International business and relations have been damaged by the spying beyond any mad bomber's dreams or abilities. While not minimizing the harm caused by real pedos and such, I submit that we are being hurt more by our own governments than any batch of terrorists.
So no Mr. Comey, you psychopathic asshole, we don't trust you and you are the biggest threat now.
drug dealers, terrorists, pedophiles. Granted that these are nasty folks and we would like to curtail their nefarious activities. But how many of us or our families have been affected by such people
More than you think, evidently.
https://www.nspcc.org.uk/preventing-abuse/child-abuse-and-neglect/child-sexual-abuse/sexual-abuse-facts-statistics/
the Fourth Amendment:
"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."
It has generally come to be seen that phones, etc. are today's equivalent (and more) of 'papers and effects.'
"It has generally come to be seen that phones, etc. are today's equivalent (and more) of 'papers and effects.'"
Correct, and so decided in California v. Riley. I have seen no reports that either local or state police, or the federal government have exceeded that limit since 2014*. That said, if any of those obtain a warrant "upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation" to seize and search a particular cell phone (or residence, or safe) the implicit right to privacy from the government in respect of the search target temporarily ceases to exist. The warrant may, for practical reasons, not be executable, but that is simply an example of the difference between authority and power; the government might not have the power to conduct a search, but in the circumstances described they have the right. The owner of a cell phone might have the power to deny the government access, but do not have the legal right and in some circumstances will be subject to punishment for refusing to allow the access.
* The significant exception to this would be at US entry points, where different rules apply to customs officers.
The main problem with the view expressed by this guy - that the government has a right to know everything we are doing and saying - is that in order to be a reasonable view you must assume that the government is benevolent toward all it s citizens. That the government always acts in the best interests of its citizens. That all laws are fair and just, and there is never a valid reason for anyone to break any law.
Unfortunately I do not know of any government where a single one of those assumptions is even close to being true. The relationship between government and citizen is far closer to the relationship between farmer and livestock than it is to parent/child. Obviously a farmer will look after his livestock and so it might appear to the sheep that the farmer is a benevolent altruist.
I've said it before, but I'll say it again: Governments need to stop acting like the enemy.
They are perpetrating massive acts of hostility against all of us and fail to comprehend why this is wrong, unjustified and unreasonable (or maybe it's the population that fail to comprehend). Any rational person will take steps to protect him/herself from such hostile actors.
Comey seems to have claimed that "under appropriate circumstances" the government has the right to demand that people answer questions. He did not express a view that the government has a right to know everything we are doing and saying, at least as reported in the article. That is far from the same thing, and everything that logically follows from it is pretty much nonsense, including likening the relation between government and citizen to that between a farmer and his livestock. The fact is that the main complaint by a great many, both lefties and Trumpists, is that the (US) government is not enough like the farmer looking after his sheep.
Pedophilia is a capital offense to God. That said you guys do carelessly prosecute a lot of cases, and apparently hacking someone's computer to leaving kiddie porn is apparently a thing, as are malware based storage networks for the stuff. God expects better due diligence from you, before you lock them away for a life-time.
'Smoked weed on the way'? The 'war on' everything is designed to fail from the start. The federal government was never vested the authority to ban a plant. It is exceedingly harmful to the society that you-all spend 60 billion or so a year, and incarcerate a fraction of Babylon's population on trumped up drug charges. Might as well make masturbation a crime. Name any of these that have succeeded at all:
War on Drugs
War on (Thought)Crime
War on Education
War on Poverty
When I first saw this article it makes me think there are advances in reading memories that those fools are hoping to use, so they can play God, and be yet more arrogant. The Elohim said of you, and
God says of Babylon 'The haughtiness of the terrible I will lay low'. Though I don't approve of their methods, or half of their arguments, this does fit the terrorists, as well as the Russians:
I have also called My mighty ones for My anger—
Those who rejoice in My exaltation.”
4 The noise of a multitude in the mountains,
Like that of many people!
The noise here is missiles, aircraft, or the like (drones etc.)
Destruction is coming to Babylon, not war. It will come as a break in a high wall:
"Therefore this iniquity shall be to you Like a breach ready to fall, A bulge in a high wall, Whose breaking comes suddenly, in an instant."
Suddenly, without warning, without escape, or survival, also, from above.
Pedophilia, so are the catholic churches archives encrypted then? Or where was your due diligence regarding them. If you are serious about it as you claim, then God demands that you re-open those cases, and prosecute the priests of Babylon.
It would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were thrown into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones.
Then a mighty angel took up a stone like a great millstone and threw it into the sea, saying, “Thus with violence the great city Babylon shall be thrown down, and shall not be found anymore.
The sound of harpists, musicians, flutists, and trumpeters shall not be heard in you anymore. No craftsman of any craft shall be found in you anymore, and the sound of a millstone shall not be heard in you anymore.
Note how Babylon is destroyed? It specifically calls out pedophilia as a reason (millstone, thrown into the sea).
If you happen to be a pedophile reading this, understand that all you have harmed or offended need to forgive you, as well as Christ. If any do not, you will dwell in the fire.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
