Documents Reveal FBI Head Defended Encryption for WhatsApp Before Becoming Fierce Critic (theguardian.com) 34
Christopher Wray, the FBI director who has been one of the fiercest critics of encryption under the Trump administration, previously worked as a lawyer for WhatsApp, where he defended the practice, according to new court filings. From a report: The documents, which were released late on Wednesday night as part of an unrelated matter, show Wray worked for WhatsApp in 2015 while he was an attorney for the Washington law firm of King & Spalding. While there are sparse details about the precise nature of the work, the filings indicate that Wray strongly defended the need for end-to-end encryption in his previous representation of WhatsApp, the popular messaging application owned by Facebook. Wray's earlier work -- which has not previously been public -- contradicts his current position on encryption, which protects users' communications and other data from being read by outsiders. The Trump administration and major technology companies like Facebook have been at odds over the need to offer customers encryption services, with the White House and law enforcement officials arguing the technology represents a security risk by protecting the communication of terrorists and criminals.
good lawyer (Score:5, Funny)
Ask Flynn how this works (Score:2)
As a lawyer, sure, that's par for the course. I'm more worried about his non-answer for the 93% non-compliance on FISA warrants.
Hopefully news like this means that he will be stepping down soon.
Re: (Score:2)
Good thing for a lawyer, yes. Not such a good thing for a politician. It just gives him the ability to defend whatever policy his superior tell him to defend, and place the substantial weight of his office behind it.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps, but a lawyer is perhaps the worst possible choice for an FBI Director (or pretty much anything else in civilization).
He was acting as a lawyer for WhatsApp (Score:4, Interesting)
I see nothing contradictory.
Acting as a lawyer for WhatsApp he argued for private encryption. This was appropriately representing the company's interests.
Acting as the head of the FBI - arguably the USA's top criminal investigative agency he is arguing against private encryption without law enforcement back doors. This may be his personal opinion, his impression of the best interest of the agency and/or its mission, or an expression of the administration's directions.
It would be preferable if the FBI's head were arguing for enforcing the highest law of the land, the Constitution, in the way WE read it, even if this might sometimes interfere with his agency's perceived immediate goals in its law enforcement efforts. But I don't see any hypocrisy here.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
How does being a lawyer override actual contradictions?
Any given one of his arguments when acting as a lawyer doesn't have to be consistent with any other one. As long as he doesn't lie about a matter of fact of which he is aware, he's generally on solid groud. He's making these arguments as an agent of his client.
In a case in criminal law, for example, a defense lawyer can make contradictory arguments IN THE SAME CASE AT THE SAME TIME. Look up "Pleading the Alternative". The government's job is to prov
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
So, while working at WhatsApp, he learned nothing about the futility of `secure' back-doors in encryption software? Or did he simply stick his fingers in his ears when the subject came up? It's gotta be one of those two or else unless he's just another lawyer who thinks his law degree conferred on him expert level knowledge in all things.
Re: (Score:1)
Okay, so he's a mouthpiece, not a thinking human being, and I don't have to put any stock into what he says, except the hard data formally deduced from axioms and empirical info.
Of which these conversations have little, so virtually everything out of him is worthless.
Most real-world conclusions, including in courtrooms, are reached with loose reasoning and imperfect data, not absolute knowledge. Even my post presents soft truths to leave you doing your own math.
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, so he's a mouthpiece, not a thinking human being, and I don't have to put any stock into what he says, except the hard data formally deduced from axioms and empirical info.
Of which these conversations have little, so virtually everything out of him is worthless.
There. That wasn't hard, was it? B-)
uhh (Score:5, Informative)
This is super weird, a court filing represents the client's position, not the lawyer's position. And as an FBI director, he represents the government's position, not his own personal one. Now a party can't argue contrary legal positions in two different cases under the doctrine of judicial estoppel. But that binds the party, not the lawyer. And theoretically it could be unethical if a lawyer argued two contrary positions for two different clients in the same court, because that might be a conflict of interest. But here it's completely outside that issue; he isn't even acting as a lawyer here.
Nothing has changed - He's still a fascist asshole (Score:5, Insightful)
Typical stasi behavior from the FBI. They all whine and bitch and moan when they can't spy on you 24/7.
Apparently he's also forgotten about the 4th 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.
So if I'm using encryption to secure my papers and effects, that seems pretty damn kosher to me
Feds can get fucked as far as I'm concerned.
Re: (Score:2)
You advocate for your client (Score:1)
As FBI director, Wray's responsibility is to advocate for his departments effectiveness. And strong encryption makes that more difficult. So of course as director of the FBI he will (and should) advocate that the FBI needs access.
As a lawyer representing WhatsApp, a company whose very existence depends on strong encryption, of course he advocated for strong encryption being good.
Both are consistent with being good in his roles at the time to make the best case for his clients.
The more interesting questio
Re:You advocate for your client (Score:5, Informative)
As FBI director, Wray's responsibility is to advocate for his departments effectiveness.
True... but as a civil servant, before the first day on the job he swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. That oath takes precedence over any requirements of his job.
Re: (Score:2)
That oath takes precedence over any requirements of his job.
Naa, that was before Trump and it did not even apply then in all cases. This is a nice demonstration how power corrupts. Never expect anybody with real power to have any honor or integrity.
The problem with FBI Director (Score:1)
As long as Wray is FBI director nothing at the FBI will change. The FBI is there to serve America, not itself as a completely corrupt organization.
At this point, I do not trust the FBI at all. And I will continue to think that way until something changes and someone is held accountable.
Wray's FBI is a swamp of self centered
Re: (Score:2)
The FBI is there to serve America
Somewhere within the decrepit halls of the brutalist designed FBI headquarters, J Edgar Hoover's ghost is laughing.
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't it ironic.. (Score:2)
...don'tcha think so...?
For hire (Score:5, Insightful)
Will promote your point of view for hire.
Re: (Score:2)
Will promote your point of view for hire.
That's the job description of a lawyer.
Re: (Score:2)
The boss calls... (Score:2)
..WALK AWAY!
so he was doing his job? (Score:2)