Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Politics
posted by Fnord666 on Friday August 04 2017, @08:16PM   Printer-friendly
from the not-fay-wray dept.

The new Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation is Christopher A. Wray:

The Senate easily confirmed President Trump's pick to lead the FBI on Tuesday, following the abrupt firing of James Comey earlier this year.

Senators voted 92-5 on Christopher Wray's nomination to lead the bureau. Democratic Sens. Elizabeth Warren (Mass.), Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.), Ron Wyden (Ore.), Jeff Merkley (Ore.) and Ed Markey (Mass.) voted against the confirmation.

EFF picked his record apart last month:

During his tenure as Assistant Attorney General in the Bush Administration, Wray vocally defended a range of controversial provisions in the USA PATRIOT Act—including Section 215, which would later provide the basis for the bulk collection of Americans' telephone metadata.

When Wray went before the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2003 to defend the PATRIOT Act, a Department of Justice document indicated that Section 215's business records provision had never been used. Wray insisted that was a sign of restraint: "We try to use these provisions sparingly, only in those instances where we feel that this is the only tool that we can use." In fact, as the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB) made clear in its report on the bulk metadata program, Section 215 was sitting fallow because the Bush Administration was already collecting much of that data—without statutory authorization.

Granted, Wray didn't have all of the information about that secretive wiretapping program until 2004, which we'll get into below. Still, his insistence that Section 215 was just an effort to bring counterterrorism powers in line with ordinary criminal authorities reflected a concerning lack of skepticism about the risk of abuse. The same holds for his defense of a range of other PATRIOT Act provisions: "sneak and peek" warrants that allow law enforcement to search first and serve notice later; a reduced bar for obtaining a FISA warrant that one district court later found inconsistent with the Fourth Amendment; and a vaguely worded expansion of the kind of Internet data, some of it potentially very sensitive, that can be collected with a pen/trap order.


Original Submission

Related Stories

FBI Director Christopher Wray Keeps War on Encryption Alive 61 comments

The new FBI Director Christopher Wray has been repeating the broken rhetoric of the Crypto Wars:

In recent testimony before Congress, the director of the FBI has again highlighted what the government sees as the problem of easy-to-use, on-by-default, strong encryption.

In prepared remarks from last Thursday, FBI Director Christopher Wray said that encryption presents a "significant challenge to conducting lawful court-ordered access," he said, again using the longstanding government moniker "Going Dark."

The statement was just one portion of his testimony about the agency's priorities for the coming year.

The FBI and its parent agency, the Department of Justice, have recently stepped up public rhetoric about the so-called dangers of "Going Dark." In recent months, both Wray and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein have given numerous public statements about this issue.

Remember to use encryption irresponsibly, and stay salty, my FBI friends.

Previously: FBI Chief Calls for National Talk Over Encryption vs. Safety
Federal Court Rules That the FBI Does Not Have to Disclose Name of iPhone Hacking Vendor
PureVPN Logs Helped FBI Net Alleged Cyberstalker
FBI Failed to Access 7,000 Encrypted Mobile Devices
Great, Now There's "Responsible Encryption"
FBI Bemoans Phone Encryption After Texas Shooting, but Refuses Apple's Help
DOJ: Strong Encryption That We Don't Have Access to is "Unreasonable"


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
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.
(1)
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 04 2017, @08:38PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 04 2017, @08:38PM (#548860)

    Something that has been overlooked for a long time is that the 9th amendment is supposed to be used for enumerating rights not covered in the rest of the bill of rights, one of which explicitly mentioned in it being the 'right to privacy'.

    Many laws written in the last 100-120 years have blatantly violated that, but since nobody bothers to remember more than... 5(?) Amendments, it hasn't really been brought up for enough supreme court cases (likely because it is the weakest written of the first 10 Amendments.)

  • (Score: 2) by linkdude64 on Saturday August 05 2017, @03:23PM

    by linkdude64 (5482) on Saturday August 05 2017, @03:23PM (#549123)

    He can't be all that good.

  • (Score: 1) by AlphaSnail on Saturday August 05 2017, @08:51PM

    by AlphaSnail (5814) on Saturday August 05 2017, @08:51PM (#549216)

    Did he have to pinky promise not to look at Trump's illegal actions? Didn't work out too good for the last guy.

(1)