FBI head defended encryption for WhatsApp before becoming fierce critic | Hacker News Reader

FBI head defended encryption for WhatsApp before becoming fierce critic

theguardian.com

22 pointsvinni27 comments

Some people will read this story and see contradiction or hypocrisy.

And they're right, of course.

But there's also another thing at play here: Perverse incentives.

If your job becomes easier when security becomes harder, you will find yourself fighting against better security. This is as true of FBI directors as it is software engineers fighting against deadlines.

I don't think we can ever expect the FBI to align itself with what's right for individual Americans and our freedom.

Wray is a lawyer and will promote whatever side is paying him. He's now a politician (and was never really a technologist) so hypocrisy is a required trait.

An unsolved problem with humans is there really isn't a good mechanism for separating "has integrity" from "pays lip-service to the notion of having integrity" at scale.

In an adversarial system integrity can mean being a vociferous proponent of something you personally don't believe should come to pass as the system relies on each side making the strongest possible argument. Or to put it another way, an adversarial system is an attempt to solve the dilemma you pose. Notably, the Director isn't explaining why he's forcing WhatsApp to decrypt; he's attempting to persuade others why he should be given the power. Those are very different things.

The contemporary American political system, perhaps even more so than its legal system in many respects, is quite adversarial.[1] And the Director of the FBI has been a largely political position since J. Edgar Hoover, except these days the lobbying is far more transparent.

[1] Arguably far too adversarial. We don't seem to appreciate the value in compromise or pragmatism as much as we did at some other points in our political history.

Changing opinions is fine. Did he change because now as a LE officer he sees actual need for looser crypto? Or is his change of opinion purely political? This article does nothing to discuss that.

I actually think one way to change opinions of OTHER people is to show some respected individual that changed his mind. There doesn't even need to be an explanation.

How do the authorities "win" when they demand backdoors for individual citizen's activities/devices but companies are expected to protect their activities at all cost and access can only be theoretically gotten through court order?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com