Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

FBI Director James Comey: "There is No Such Thing as Absolute Privacy in America"

posted by Fnord666 on Thursday March 16 2017, @09:39PM   Printer-friendly
from the compelling-truth dept.

Kromagv0 writes:

Last week FBI Director James Comey at the Boston College conference on cybersecurity stated:

There is no such thing as absolute privacy in America; there is no place outside of judicial reach,

While that quote in the article is taken out of context, it is even more disturbing when taken in context. The included video puts the quote in context where Comey is arguing against widespread access to strong encryption with the public. There are other quotes included as well that are just as disturbing, such as:

Even our communications with our spouses, with our clergy members, with our attorneys are not absolutely private in America... ...In appropriate circumstances, a judge can compel any one of us to testify in court about those very private communications.

Is this the "adult conversation" on encryption he was getting ready for last year?

Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
FBI Director James Comey: "There is No Such Thing as Absolute Privacy in America" | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 57 comments | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

  • (Score: 3, Informative) by Kromagv0 on Friday March 17 2017, @12:30PM

    by Kromagv0 (1825) on Friday March 17 2017, @12:30PM (#480358) Homepage

    My issue is not with the appropriate due process where individuals can be compelled to testify, or the legal granting of warrants for search and seizure but instead with his blanket statement that appears to exclude attorney–client privilege [wikipedia.org], spousal privilege [wikipedia.org], or 5th Amendment rights [wikipedia.org]. The fact that he holds encryption out as something that has broken that legal balance and in the video all of his previous statements are used to make people who use encryption to protect their privacy out to be people who are there to circumvent the law is what I find disturbing. This is because he starts out with the false premise that the government can always get at the communication data they want when clearly this is not and never had been the case.

    --
    T-Shirts and bumper stickers [zazzle.com] to offend someone
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Informative=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  
    Total Score:   3