The FBI and Backdoors

Recall that the FBI has long wanted government-accessible backdoors into our personal but encrypted communications.  “Trust us,” FBI leadership assures us, “we wouldn’t misuse that access; we’ll only use for ‘criminal’ investigations, and only with government authorization.”  And they’ve claimed in support of that wide-eyed innocence that they can’t break into over 7,000 cell phones in the pursuit of criminal investigations.  Current FBI Director Christopher Wray even put the number at over 7,700.

However.

On Tuesday, the FBI told PCMag that a programming error resulted in a “significant overcounting” of the encrypted devices. “The FBI is currently conducting an in-depth review of how this over-counting previously occurred,” the agency said in a statement.

PCMag went on to cite the Washington Post as putting the actual number at around 1,200.

Oops, indeed.

According to the agency, starting in April 2016, it began using a new “collection methodology” with how it counted the encrypted devices. But only recently did the FBI become aware of flaws in the methodology, it said, without elaborating.

Right.

“Given the availability of these third-party solutions, we’ve questioned how and why the FBI finds itself thwarted by so many locked phones,” the Electronic Frontier Foundation said in a blog post.

Indeed.  Whether this government agency was being dishonest in its characterization of the encryption “problem,” or it was just being incredibly sloppy in using “collection methodology” that it has so plainly inadequately tested, this incident is just one more reason Government cannot be trusted with back doors into privately encrypted personal correspondence.

Believe a Woman

Last weekend, a woman accused a Texas State Trooper of sexually assaulting her during a traffic stop.  Sherita Dixon-Cole

alleged that after she failed a field sobriety test, Hubbard had “suggested she could go home in exchange for sexual favors,” according to [Dixon-Cole’s lawyer Lee] Merritt’s initial press release. Dixon-Cole said that after she refused, she was taken to Hubbard’s police car where she was “forcefully groped, fondled, and vaginally penetrated during a prolonged arrest.”

She went on to say Hubbard continued his sexual advances on the way to the police station, even alleging that he offered to take her to a remote location where she could provide sexual favors in exchange for her release from custody.

Never mind.

Texas’ Department of Public Safety reviewed and released two hours of dashcam video of the incident as soon as they received the woman’s accusation.  After seeing actual evidence,

Lee Merritt issued a statement saying the evidence “directly conflicts with the accounts reported to my office” by Sherita Dixon-Cole.

Then he—not Dixon-Cole—apologized for the false accusation.

It’s instructive that Dixon-Cole has yet to apologize to the officer or to the Texas DPS for her smear.  Instead, lacking integrity (which she’s already shown) and the moral courage to apologize, she’s cowering behind a third party.  Her lawyer apologized, allegedly in her name.  That’s grossly insufficient.

Nevertheless, a woman should be believed whenever she accuses.  Except when she lies.  Or except when it’s inconvenient to believe her, as with Juanita Broaddrick.  #MeToo, indeed.

Confusion, or….

The NLMSM has its collective panty in a twist over US Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley’s use of her twitter account.

Or they’re manufacturing a paranoia about her use, claiming she’s campaigning for the Presidency by using her personal Twitter account for Official Business.  Here’s what Politico offered as examples of this misuse.

That can’t possibly be a personal opinion shared with her personal followers.  Nope—that’s Official Business.  She’s instructing staff with that expression.

And this:

Yeah, that’s an Official Instruction to…someone…all right.

And this:

Because any expression of sympathy and commiseration and encouragement can only be Official Business.

The NLMSM is getting desperate in its search for criticisms those not within its narrative.

A Mueller Interrogation

It’s well enough known that Special Counselor Robert Mueller is anxious to interrogate President Donald Trump as part of Mueller’s “investigation” of Russian interference in our 2016 election and of the Trump campaign’s alleged role in colluding with the Russians in that interference.  Trump’s counselor, Rudy Giuliani, says that Trump should not agree to the interrogation unless and until Mueller details the degree of DoJ spying on the Trump campaign, including what the FBI’s planted “informant,” Cambridge Professor Stefan Halper (who may be only one of two or three such plants), was doing and what he passed on to his FBI handlers.

Giuliani is right about that.  Trump can take a number of direct actions on the matter himself, though, that would speed things along.  After much stonewalling by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, a Federal judge presiding over a related-only-by-Mueller-claim case got fed up with Mueller’s own stonewalling in that case and ordered Mueller to deliver up the DoJ letter and amendment specifying the scope of Mueller’s investigation.  On DoJ’s claim that the documents are classified, they were delivered under seal to the judge.

House and Senate committees that also have requested those documents have been refused: Rosenstein objects to petty Congressmen overseeing his august activities.  Trump should order Rosenstein to deliver the documents to the House and Senate committees under a short deadline, say by noon Eastern Time this Friday.  If Rosenstein really is concerned about classification, they can be delivered to the subset of committee members who have the requisite clearance—and, yes, the committees have members of both parties with the clearances (their need to know already is plain).  If those documents are not delivered on time, Trump should, at 1201 Eastern, declassify the documents (Presidents are the ultimate arbiters of what’s classified and not classified) and order them hand-carried to the committees by COB Friday.

Trump should handle documentation related to the FBI’s spy(s) in his campaign similarly.  He should order Rosenstein to deliver all documentation, including correspondence with and about Halper (et al.), related to the plants and what they passed back to their handlers, delivered to those same committees and to the White House (perhaps to Giuliani in particular).  In view of the probable extensive amount of such documentation, Rosenstein should be given until, say, noon on Monday to produce.  If that deadline goes unmet, Trump should, at 1201 on Monday, declassify those documents and order their hand-carried delivery to the committees and the White House by COB Monday.

It’s time to put an end to the stonewalling and get things moving again.  Then a Mueller interrogation can have a chance to be an honest one.

Journalistic Integrity

I got an online newspaper survey (requested by a highly respected paper), and one of the questions opened a text box into which I was asked to enter my thoughts on subjects to be addressed by the paper’s contributors.  This is my list of topics.

  1. ID of “anonymous” sources
  2. Explanation of why [the paper] has walked away from journalistic standard of corroborating “anonymous” sources with at least two on the record sources [Note: this paper is not unique; the standard has been ignored by all news media]
  3. Explanation of why we readers should believe “anonymous” sources actually exist
  4. On the premise that at least some of the “anonymous” sources actually exist, explanation of why we should believe what the source is claiming, given his fundamental dishonesty as demonstrated by his leak, which came at least in violation of his terms of employment if not his oath of office
  5. On claims that the leaker is actually a whistle-blower, explanation of why proof was withheld from readers that he exhausted all of his whistle-blower channels before he leaked
  6. Regarding 5 above, provision of that proof
  7. Identification of the whistle blower, since he needs no anonymity; whistle-blower laws protect him