back to article Comey was loathed by the left, reviled by the right – must have been doing something right

The firing of FBI Director James Comey came as a shock to almost everyone, not least to the man himself. Comey was addressing FBI students in Los Angeles when the television behind him flashed up the news of President Trump's decision to give him his marching papers. Comey reportedly saw this and laughed, congratulating his …

  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Comey was a coward for not throwing Hilldog under the bus

    She deserved prison, but I guess Comey feared for his career/safety/life if the Clintoon crime family got back in power. as was looking likely mid way through last year.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Comey was a coward for not throwing Hilldog under the bus

      "She deserved prison..."

      What does Trump deserve by your measures?

      (This is a sanity test, so take your time.)

      1. a_yank_lurker

        Re: Comey was a coward for not throwing Hilldog under the bus

        Blowhard wasn't the target of Hildafelon's email activities. Anyone who ever had a US security clearance knows the one cardinal rule - you must protect the data for the rest of your life until the information is declassified. Failure to do so is a felony. Hildafelon's homebrew email server failed to protect the information thus she committed a federal felony. The prosecution of Hildafelon will be slam-dunk for any marginally competent prosecutor.

        As far as Blowhard, the fact that Hildafelon is a criminal does make him innocent or guilty.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Comey was a coward for not throwing Hilldog under the bus

        "She deserved prison..."

        What does Trump deserve by your measures?

        Offending fragile snowflakes like you is not a federal crime, however desperately you wished otherwise!

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Comey was a coward for not throwing Hilldog under the bus

          "Offending fragile snowflakes..."

          And that's a Sanity Test Fail. Thanks for playing.

          1. ProgrammerForHire

            Re: Comey was a coward for not throwing Hilldog under the bus

            Said the guy with the Anonymous icon... really, are you 12 ?

        2. Alt C

          Re: Comey was a coward for not throwing Hilldog under the bus

          I know snowflake is supposed to be an insult but looking at the defintion from wikipedia

          is a neologistic term used to characterize the young adults of the 2010s as being more prone to taking offence and less resilient than previous generations, or as being too emotionally vulnerable to cope with views that challenge their own. The term is considered derogatory.

          Apart from the young adults part doesn't that pretty much define the behaviour of Trump? I will cite his own tweets as evidence and interviews on Fox news.

      3. ProgrammerForHire

        Re: Comey was a coward for not throwing Hilldog under the bus

        Trump deserves the rule of law, if incriminatory things will be found about him .

        As did Hillary. Stop using this "your guy is worse" tactic

    2. Slef

      Re: Comey was a coward for not throwing Hilldog under the bus

      If you are going to spout shyte at least have the balls to use your own account. Or are you the Donald?

      1. Tim99 Silver badge

        Re: Comey was a coward for not throwing Hilldog under the bus

        "If you are going to spout shyte at least have the balls to use your own account. Or are you the Donald?"

        Probably not. The post does not appear to have unintentional spelling errors, and lacks the usual unnecessary upper-case letters.

        1. Unicornpiss
          Meh

          At the risk of bruising a dead horse a little more..

          Hillary is no prize, but people seem to be unable to make the distinction between making a mistake and criminal intent. That she was apparently stupid enough to use a personal email for official business is a firing offense for most jobs and certainly called into question her fitness for office. But this falls short of criminal behavior.

          Still, I would have rather had her in office than the lame excuse for a human being we have now.

    3. Hollerithevo

      Re: Comey was a coward for not throwing Hilldog under the bus

      And Condolessa Rice as well -- she also used a private server!!

      1. bazza Silver badge

        Re: Comey was a coward for not throwing Hilldog under the bus

        And Condolessa Rice as well -- she also used a private server!!

        Trump and his cronnies have continued using their own email servers now that they're in public office. Seems that there's a general inability amongst politicians to transfer their contacts lists between the private servers they use when they're campaigning and the government ones they're supposed to use once they're sworn in.

        This kind of thing is almost inevitable in the US political system. They swap out the entire executive staff, so there can be almost no one in a new administration who really, truly understands national security, the demands of public service, the vulnerabilities of being part of the Administration, the level of attention their lives and work are going to attract from the entire world's hostile intelligence agencies, and the appalling inability of the everyday things that they're used to using (mobiles, land lines, email servers, the lot) to resist attention from foreign spies.

        There's probably a few security staff on the permanent payroll who somehow have to convince hundreds of brand new political appointees that there really is a significant risk. And they have maybe 0.5 hours to achieve that. Sounds like an impossible task...

    4. Mahhn

      Re: Comey was a coward for not throwing Hilldog under the bus

      no matter how many down votes you get, you are right.

      For those crying about the emails, that was just a snowflake in the avalanche of her misdeeds.

      For those crying about Trump should be slapped down, yeah he should, but that's no excuse for letter her slide by.

      1. Blank Reg

        Re: Comey was a coward for not throwing Hilldog under the bus

        Those alleged misdeeds were all made up by the republicans that knew they had enough simpletons listening to them that if they just repeated the allegations long enough that some people would believe them.

        It didn't matter that they spent years and 100's of millions of YOUR money on investigations that were unable to prove a single thing, there are enough stupid to believe them regardless.

        1. Rob D.

          Re: Comey was a coward for not throwing Hilldog under the bus

          > Those alleged misdeeds were all made up by the republicans ...

          Probably accurate but you could have stopped that at 'alleged misdeeds', whether made up by republicans, democrats or anyone else with an axe to grind, it is the 'alleged' part that matters.

          Investigations were carried out under the prevailing ability of due process defined by legislation, and all that has happened since is Trump and his ilk told the simpletons, "Just send her to prison anyway - this is America where the need for judicial process, presumption of innocence or presence of evidence is entirely optional if you disagree angrily enough."

          Trump is demonstrably an object of ridicule around the political and diplomatic globe - so many factual examples available but let's stay topical. Who undermines the success of signing a significant trade agreement with China by chaotically firing a high profile target like Comey on the same day and then undermines the untenable justifications of said act the very next day in some rambling response to a simple TV interview?

          Flynn? Russian delegation photos? Travel ban? Shall we go on or do we need more 'snowflake' references from ACs?

          1. veti Silver badge

            Re: Comey was a coward for not throwing Hilldog under the bus

            @Rob D: you have made the connection that truly explains this mess.

            Remember who The Donald is addressing: his core voters, lower-income whites not exactly overburdened with education. Remember what those people really wanted him to do, his supposedly number one priority? Shut down trade with China.

            What has he done Instead? Signed a new trade deal with China.

            So how to stop the aforementioned hillbillies turning on him? Simples: create a media shitstorm the same day, about some issue that is sufficiently removed from their everyday lives that they will reflexively support him over it, just for loyalty's sake.

            And now he's at the middle of a shitstorm (of his own deliberate creation) with the press once again baying for his blood, those aforementioned gulls who support him will continue to support him even if the subject of the China deal comes up. Because they're primed for it; it's a matter of loyalty, it's tribal now.

            The Donald understands this type of politics, it's what got him elected, and no-one else has caught up with it yet.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: Comey was a coward for not throwing Hilldog under the bus

              Watch what the Donald does, not what he says.

              It's a long time since we had a politician who not only has the nöus to get elected, but also has an agenda beyond that.

          2. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Comey was a coward for not throwing Hilldog under the bus

            Trump is demonstrably an object of ridicule around the political and diplomatic globe

            The Donald is smart enough to appear to be a complete buffoon. That way people only listen to what he says, and miss what he is actually doing...

        2. Sigfried

          Re: Comey was a coward for not throwing Hilldog under the bus

          That's complete bullshit. Let's list three actual felonies committed by Clinton either directly or under her supervision.

          1. Perjury. Lied under oath to a federal judge when stating that she had released all eMails relevant to an FOI request. FBI investigation. although not directly related to this, showed that at least some of the emails that were deleted (after the FOI request) were relevant. Perjury is a major crime, got Bill impeached.

          2. Obstruction of Justice: Congress issued a valid subpoena for her eMails on 3 March 2016. 33,000 or so eMails were deliberately deleted on 25 March 2016. That's a slam-dunk obstruction of justice charge, especially as again from the FBI investigation, we know that the actual people doing the deletions were aware of the existence of the subpoena, not that it matters.

          3. Various violations of security laws. Although Comey refused to recommend prosecution, there's little doubt that as the relevant statute specifically does NOT require intent, that Clinton is indeed guilty of removing highly classified compartmentalized data from secure systems onto her open eMail server. Such data was also shared with staff who lacked the relevant security clearances. As anyone who has been exposed to classified information can tell you, her actions in this regard would get, as a minimum from anyone else in the USA a permanent removal from ever getting a security clearance plus almost certain jail time.

          And those are just the three obvious examples. Now, still so certain that it was invented ? Clinton has been proven to be immune to prosecution because of political patronage, but she is provably guilty of crimes that would send you or I to jail for an extended period. Quite why you all seem to support this sort of criminality at such levels is beyond me, but there you go.

          1. Lord Elpuss Silver badge

            Re: Comey was a coward for not throwing Hilldog under the bus

            @Sigfried

            So... that's a No on finding anything other than spurious email nonsense to lock her up on then? Thought so.

            Meanwhile Trump is sharing classified intel with Russia in closed briefings. Yeah. Great job Murica, you just elected the thickest, most orange political halfwit in history.

      2. cosmogoblin

        Re: Comey was a coward for not throwing Hilldog under the bus

        I didn't like the way AC expressed themself, but yeah. Trump is a terrible president, acting more and more as though Nixon is his rolemodel, and this was obvious a year ago - all the DNC had to do was present a candidate more palatable than Trump. And somehow they failed!

    5. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Comey was a coward for not throwing Hilldog under the bus

      Southpark had this right.

      Turd Sandwich or Giant Douche.

      No matter which side you stand by they were and are both shit.

      This is very similar to the UK. We currently have the worst choice in an election for many years. On the one hand we have May who despite being a vicars daughter appears to not have a soul and Corbyn who reminds me of a hippy uncle that doesn't really have a clue about how the real world works. The lib-dems don't really deserve a mention since they got into bed with the Tories and introduced university fees ensuring the total fuck up of social mobility and consigning this country to bottom of the world in education.

      But I digress, both Trump and Hilary were as bad as each other and stating that Hillary should be put under the bus should have Trump being put under a bus too. That's coming btw unless he can magically avoid the scandal to come.

      1. Lord Elpuss Silver badge

        Re: Comey was a coward for not throwing Hilldog under the bus

        "No matter which side you stand by they were and are both shit."

        No, actually, they weren't. Hillary was (and is) one of the most honest frontline politicians of the current generation; based on the fairly simple premise of true vs false statements made, and promises made vs promises kept. See Sources below.

        This is the most damaging consequence of Fake News. Not that it painted Trump as trustworthy (he wasn't, isn't, and in all probability never will be), but that it painted the alternative as 'just as bad, so you might as well vote for Trump".

        Sources: The Guardian, motherjones.com and the New York Times.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Comey was a coward for not throwing Hilldog under the bus

          Hillary was (and is) one of the most honest frontline politicians of the current generation...

          This has got to be a troll! Hillary is one of the most inauthentic and untrustworthy politicians of any generation. The fact she lost to a candidate who would struggle to beat a stuffed toy tells you how insufferable the woman is.

          Anyway, getting back on topic. Here are Hillary's two big LIES which for lesser individuals would've resulted in a life sentence.

          The results of an FBI investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server as secretary of state shredded Clinton’s most oft-recited defense — that she never sent or received information marked classified.

          Clinton made the case for a year and as recently as Saturday, hours after being interviewed by investigators.

          "Let me repeat what I have repeated for many months now," Clinton said July 2, 2016. "I never received nor sent any material that was marked classified."

          In reality, Clinton has made the same general claim two ways. At a Democratic debate in February, Clinton said, "I never sent or received any classified material." Other times she’s added the qualifier that she never sent material "marked" classified.

          http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jul/06/hillary-clinton/fbi-findings-tear-holes-hillary-clintons-email-def/

          Hillary Clinton is sticking to her defense that her use of a private email server while secretary of state was "allowed," despite a critical independent audit that found it really wasn’t.

          In a May 26 interview, ABC reporter Liz Kreutz asked Clinton about her decision to use a server located in her New York home instead of a government email, as well as the audit, which was conducted by the State Department’s Office of the Inspector General.

          "But this report said that you, quote, 'had an obligation to discuss' using your personal email and that you didn’t," Kreutz said. "So how can you really say that it was allowed? Was it an error of judgment?"

          Clinton replied: "Well it was allowed, and the rules have been clarified since I left about the practice. Having said that, I have said many times that it was a mistake, and if I could go back I would do it differently."

          Since the news of Clinton’s email came to light in 2015, she has argued that she "complied with every rule" and that the practice was "allowed." We haven’t yet put the issue on the Truth-O-Meter because there were too many unknowns.

          But the inspector general’s report has clarified some of those unknowns and demonstrated that Clinton’s exclusive use of personal email was, in fact, not allowed.

          http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/may/31/hillary-clinton/fact-checking-hillary-clintons-claim-her-email-pra/

          1. Lord Elpuss Silver badge

            Re: Comey was a coward for not throwing Hilldog under the bus

            @AC re email. So you're saying that out of a decades-long political career, the absolute worst - the most 'lock her up'able offense you can dig up, is that email thing which ended up not being a thing after all?

            I would say you've just comprehensively proved my point. And given that I'm starting to strongly believe you're a paid troll, I'm not responding to anything else you post whilst AC; no matter how retarded you sound. Begone with you.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Comey was a coward for not throwing Hilldog under the bus

        This is very similar to the UK.

        Indeed. Largely politicians and elections are routinely rigged to appear to give a choice, while all real dissent is sidelined.

        So we end up discussing gay marriage and foxhunting, instead of whether or not givernment should be allowed to micromanage our lives or not. Or take all our wealth and hand it to (useless) windfarm operators. etc.

        All bureaucracy tends towards a one party state, no matter how many cheeks that arse* has.

        *https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DVcqZsHJz_A

      3. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Comey was a coward for not throwing Hilldog under the bus

        It occurs to me that the standard of conversation here could be improved very easily by simply blocking any comment that contains a set of insult-shifted names of US politicians. They are such a reliable indicator of total dolts.

    6. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Comey was a coward for not throwing Hilldog under the bus

      YES and TRUMP DERSERVES AND NIGHTHOOD for MAKING AMERIXA GREAT AGAIN.

      1. VulcanV5

        Re: Comey was a coward for not throwing Hilldog under the bus

        FFS, Donald, if you really feel you have to comment on here, couldn't you get Sphincter to at least check yer spelink furst?????

      2. Rich 11

        Re: Comey was a coward for not throwing Hilldog under the bus

        You forgot to use the joke icon.

    7. Mad Hacker

      Re: Comey was a coward for not throwing Hilldog under the bus

      I really thought the type of people that read and understand articles on The Register wouldn't use nicknames like Hilldog.

      I don't expect everyone here to agree on politics but making up derogatory names for someone is juvenile and erodes your credibility. I question whether you were even able to read and understand this article.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Comey was a coward for not throwing Hilldog under the bus

        Well I always think of her as the Clitorall Hinny...but then I used to do a lot of crosswords

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Comey was a coward for not throwing Hilldog under the bus

        you mean like "the orange one" and dozens of other Trump references that flood every single article that possibly can be connected to Chump (see there's another one) around here?

        Blind to the forest because you're looking for a specific tree is the problem with partisanship.

        And curses and plagues upon any of you who continue the false and horrible slandering of Cheetos which have done nothing wrong to deserve such Snackist hate :P

    8. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Regardless of Hillary

      Trump's firing is an obvious attempt at obstruction of justice. If he was being honest when he claimed there is nothing to the Trump/Russia thing, then he wouldn't care that it was being investigated - he'd look even better to his supporters when he was vindicated in the end. If he was really firing over the Clinton business he would have fired him his first day in office, and his supporters who wanted to see Clinton up on charges would have blisters on their hands from applauding so much.

      Trump's actions since he took office show how little understanding he had of the constitutional limitation of presidential powers before becoming president. He admires dictators all over the world from Putin to Duterte and others he's spoken well of because he's jealous of their total control of their country's government and media. Which is why he constantly lashes out at the media, at judges, and at congress when they go against him, because he can't run the US the way he runs his companies, or Putin runs Russia.

      He thought he could shut down the investigation that was starting to get too close for comfort when they began looking into his business dealings in Russia by firing Comey. He was by all accounts shocked at the reaction, assuming the lame excuse he cooked up with a sadly compliant and now permanently tainted Rosenstein would satisfy everyone. Reportedly Steve Bannon told him this wouldn't be a good time to fire Comey - if the resident bomb thrower thought he was going too far, maybe he should have listened!

      Having Russians and their state media alone in the Oval Office the next day shows how poor his decision making is, and then his tweet about "tapes" that brings echoes of Nixon that were already present with the Comey firing attemping to shut down an active investigation into himself should demonstrate to everyone how utterly out of his depth this rather feeble minded man is.

      He's dug himself too deep, at this point it is a matter of when, not if, he's impeached. I assume the only reason republicans in congress haven't started turning on him en masse at this point is fear that the Trump loyalist voters will knock them out in primaries in 2018 as punishment for rejecting their orange snowflake master. Which may be a real fear, I grant you, but the flip side is if they stand by Trump then democrats will be able to run on a "checks and balances" platform in 2018, which along with the anger over Trumpcare, will relegate republicans to minority party status in both houses of congress and Trump will be impeached anyway.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Regardless of Hillary

        YOU WRITE long words but TRUMP willl be AROUND LO GET THAN YHR dinosaurs. HE IS WINNING BIG and will BUILD his WALL and block YHE DOOOR to CLIMTONs LIBRY HEY Siri get me a pizza and. WHOOOOR.

        1. Blank Reg

          Re: Regardless of Hillary

          Could he maybe work on helping you with your spelling and grammar first?

          Sorry, I forgot who we're talking about here, he'd first have to learn how spell himself. So I guess you're on your own.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Regardless of Hillary

            Yes, Hillary's statements about the emails were ever changing as new evidence came in. She suffered from the same disease that almost every career politician has - when confronted with wrongdoing or mistakes, deny deny deny. Every president I've been around for from Reagan to Trump and all the ones in between suffered from this problem.

            It would be nice just once to see a president who admits wrongdoing, apologizes and moves on. Instead of having scandals dragging out forever, they'd take the one hit and be done with it. Maybe it wouldn't work, I don't know, but surely it is worth someone trying??

      2. gnasher729 Silver badge

        Re: Regardless of Hillary

        So what you are basically saying about Trump is: "If you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to fear, and no reason to get rid of the boss of the FBI". If there was nothing inappropriate done by Trump, then there cannot be any evidence, so Comey couldn't have found any evidence, so why did he get fired?

    9. Roo
      Windows

      Re: Comey was a coward for not throwing Hilldog under the bus

      "She deserved prison"

      No more than Donald or any of the other clowns in DC.

    10. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Comey was a coward for not throwing Hilldog under the bus

      Does anyone else remember when then President Bill Clinton fired his FBI chief hours before Vince Foster's body was found?

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Rod Rosenstein

    "...recommendation from Deputy Attorney Rod Rosenstein..."

    Elsewhere I've read that he denied this and threatened to resign over it.

    Probably "fake news", LOL.

    1. veti Silver badge

      Re: Rod Rosenstein

      Rosenstein's letter has been widely published, e.g. here. As far as I know there's no dispute about it.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Rod Rosenstein

        There's no dispute that Rosenstein wrote the letter. The claim is that when Rosenstein found out that Trump's administration was using it at their sole justification for firing Comey he went ballistic and threatened to quit.

        This is understandable, as he enjoyed wide bipartisan support, but letting himself be used like this makes him look like a Trump lackey, something his reputation is unlikely to ever recover from.

        Trump "fixed" it later with his admission that he was going to fire Comey no matter what, but it still makes Rosenstein look really bad.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Rod Rosenstein

          Nope, fake news, Rosenstein has denied that story.

          But who cares, anything to slag the Donald will do.

  3. Bloodbeastterror

    "He's a showboat, he's a grandstander"

    From Trump...?

    They said that irony died when Kissinger was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Good to see that American leadership is keeping up the tradition.

    1. Anonymous IV

      Re: "He's a showboat, he's a grandstander"

      > They said that irony died when Kissinger was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

      For "they" (always a weasel word in a quotation) read "Tom Lehrer"; for 'irony' read 'political satire'. The real factual quotation is:

      "Political satire became obsolete when Henry Kissinger was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize."

      1. Rich 11

        Re: "He's a showboat, he's a grandstander"

        The old bastard was seen tottering around the White House this week. Given the current situation there he must have been enjoying some happy reminiscences.

  4. fedoraman
    Black Helicopters

    The truth?

    The truth will come out. It may just take a little longer now, that's all. Comey's side of it will be told; if not by him directly, then through some other obliging TLA employees. I don't know how the wider intelligence community views this move -- given the way that Donald Trump has alienated some of them in the past, I can't imagine that it feels in any way comforting.

    1. Warm Braw

      Re: The truth?

      I suspect that when the recordings of the various conversations finally emerge, as they most likely will, they will not match each other, but will match the recollections of the parties that made them and everyone will continue to believe what they want to believe. Trump's great success - his only success - has been to redefine "truth" for generations to come.

    2. HandleAlreadyTaken

      Re: The truth?

      Even if the truth DOES come out, will it even matter? Nobody seems to care about truth anymore - Republicans haven't shown any interest in truth since at least the beginning of the Dubya years, and Democrats don't seem to give it any thought lately either. On both sides of the aisle ideology trumps reality (not intended as a pun, it just comes out this way), loud shouts trump common sense, the best lack all conviction while the worst are full of passionate intensity.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: The truth?

        If there are recordings, they would have been made by Trump, and he'll never voluntarily surrender them because he's a serial liar and unless he's truly for real delusional knows he was lying through his teeth and the tapes would prove that. Only a fool believes his assertion that Comey told him he wasn't a subject of the investigation. Even if it didn't violate all bounds of ethics, a former prosecutor like Comey would never say that the leader of an organization that was under active and growing investigation is not a subject - even if he wasn't at the time there's no way to predict where things would lead.

        Trump's autocratic style, born of his business background, guarantees that everything will lead directly to orders given by him. Recent reports indicate that evidence has been found of collusion, if so it will eventually be traced to Trump's orders (or immunity will be granted in exchange for testimony of same)

        This is why Trump asked Comey for a "loyalty pledge", and probably did of everyone else too. He's naive enough to think that a power hungry person willing to give such a pledge with fingers crossed behind their back will fall on their sword and serve time in prison for him. They'll turn on him the first chance they get, starting with Flynn. The only person in the White House truly loyal to him is Ivanka...and maybe Jared. No one else cares about him, the way that leaders like Reagan and Obama inspired loyalty in their staff.

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Comey is a tool

    He is a tool of the surveillance state. Expect an appointment to a conservative university chair or neocon think tank. They'll welcome him for his defense of the right to pry by law enforcement, the military and business. He might even get unspoken praise for tweaking Tiny Hands. No one will take away points for how the mail server scandal was handled because it was so easily (and effectively) turned into Cold War 2, making the world even safer and more profitable forRaytheon and Oracle.

  6. Trigonoceps occipitalis

    infuriated those people who know a thing or six about encryption

    Is there any one out there who knows six (or more} about encryption? My limited scientific and mathematical take on back doors is that there is no way that one would be compatible with secure encryption. What I want to know is whether there is a peer reviewed proof that a secure back doored system is impossible? Conversely is there a proof that a secure back door is possible?

    My proof would start and end with something along the lines of: "Its bleedin' obvious that a secure back door is impossible."

    I am also convinced that even if a theoretical system can be designed implementation will be practically impossible.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: infuriated those people who know a thing or six about encryption

      Unfortunately the EFF's signing on to the bogus "Russia hacked the election" story severely damages their credibility. They should be working diligently to exploding that myth to undercut the Deep State's justification for mass surveillance instead of giving it credibility. More evidence that organizations we once thought were dedicated to the common good are willing to pervert their agenda in the partisan interests of a few wealthy donors.

      1. Frumious Bandersnatch

        Re: infuriated those people who know a thing or six about encryption

        Unfortunately the EFF's signing on to the bogus ...

        That's not what the article said. It said that it's worried about "the independence of the office and its ability to conduct fair investigations".

        Personally, I don't think that an investigation would come up with enough to tie Trump to the Russians directly, though I suspect that there are others in his entourage who were compromised. Still, if he has nothing to hide, then why should he fear the probe? A normal, sane individual would allow this to run its course. Instead, Trump uses bluster and now, it seems, direct interference in the workings of the investigation. That doesn't project an image of him being free of taint.

        the partisan interests of a few wealthy donors.

        Surely you're not serious here, or are you back to talking about Trump and Russian donors again?

    2. Frumious Bandersnatch

      Re: infuriated those people who know a thing or six about encryption

      It's called "key escrow". The device used by the consumer has a secret key that can be used (along with other information, such as the device ID) to recover the session key used to encrypt the communication. The device is supposed to be tamper-resistant, so users aren't able to access the escrow key. A copy of the that key is also stored by law enforcement, allowing them to decrypt the communication whenever they want.

      The other way to implement it is to present users with a new encryption scheme that's supposedly secure, but has a flaw that is known to your mathematicians, but (supposedly) not anyone else. This gives them an advantage when it comes to decrypting stuff because it becomes feasible to use some short-cut to brute-forcing the message.

      With both sorts of secret (escrow key or "back door"), the security of everything is dependent on how secure that secret is. As we've seen from NSA leaks (giving rise to this weekend's botnet that hit the NHS among others), plus the existence of plenty of hardware and maths wizzes outside of the NSA (or whoever) who can, with enough time, effort and money, crack that secret, rendering the encryption completely irrelevant.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: infuriated those people who know a thing or six about encryption

        Oh, the spectacular ability of governments to manage key escrow and keep those keys safe already has been disproven in the real world. Just look up TSA master keys.

        All these scams, sorry, schemes rely on an entirely mythical and unproven ability of any government to adequately protect those keys, really only use them in accordance with the law and be 100% transparent about it all. That's three separate issues that on their own are already impossible to achieve, let alone simultaneously.

        In short, I'm not buying that one either.

    3. This post has been deleted by its author

      1. Commswonk

        Re: infuriated those people who know a thing or six about encryption

        @ Fred Flintstone: there are too many "freedom fighters" out there who think publishing the full details of this will somehow make our world a better place. From what I see, it's only made the world a better place for criminals. Yes, transparency is a must, but you can disclose the existence of these things without dumping the full code online so some jerk can wrap their own malware around it.

        "Freedom fighters" include the BBC IMHO. They interviewed some "IT blogger" (IIRC) who claimed that he had stopped the spread of the current global quite by accident, and he gave an outline explanation of how. (I do not have the knowledge to know if he was talking sense or bollocks, but for now I will give him the benefit of the doubt.)

        However, if what he said was true then he and the BBC gifted whoever was responsible for the serious world - wide attack the means and opportunity to circumvent his roadblock and try again. How can security ever be maintained if people are all too willing to blab about how fixes can be achieved? Of course material like that gets news - hounds salivating, but I bet neither the BBC nor any other medium would give much air - time to "how I hacked the BBC's / other news medium's computer system".

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: infuriated those people who know a thing or six about encryption

          > They interviewed some "IT blogger" (IIRC) who claimed that he had stopped the spread of the current global quite by accident, ...

          This is the blog post you're meaning. The author appears to be a security professional whose job is to defeat and destroy malware such as this.

          That's based on reading his blog post and the associated discussion on Hacker News though.

          1. Commswonk

            Re: infuriated those people who know a thing or six about encryption

            This is the blog post you're meaning. The author appears to be a security professional whose job is to defeat and destroy malware such as this.

            OK; fine. I was querying the wisdom of the widespread publication of what he did via the BBC. Surely a "security professional" might be better to limit the numbers of people he informs of his success and how it was achieved.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: infuriated those people who know a thing or six about encryption

              > OK; fine. I was querying the wisdom of the widespread publication of what he did via the BBC.

              No argument here. My guess is he's young and wanting attention or validation, thus his blog post. It may even be helpful for his resume, pay scale. (no idea personally, I don't know him nor his employer)

              None of which really has any bearing on this article on TheReg though.

            2. veti Silver badge

              Re: infuriated those people who know a thing or six about encryption

              OK; fine. I was querying the wisdom of the widespread publication of what he did via the BBC. Surely a "security professional" might be better to limit the numbers of people he informs of his success and how it was achieved.

              Sure, because professional malware authors would never dream of reading security blogs, or even monitoring the spread of their malware and noticing that it had abruptly stopped...

              Seriously, what would keeping it secret have achieved?

              1. CrazyOldCatMan Silver badge

                Re: infuriated those people who know a thing or six about encryption

                Seriously, what would keeping it secret have achieved?

                Especially as it would be obvious (to the authors of the malware) what had happened - their infection rates plummeted and, knowing the domain they were using as a check, their first step would be to check whether the domain exists.

                If I were the author[1], I'd have a cron job sitting somewhere doing DNS lookups on my malware domains, purely to catch things like this.

                [1] I'm not. Although, I do use Windows, which sometimes feels somewhat equivalent..

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: infuriated those people who know a thing or six about encryption

          "Freedom fighters" include the BBC IMHO. They interviewed some "IT blogger" (IIRC) who claimed that he had stopped the spread of the current global quite by accident, and he gave an outline explanation of how. (I do not have the knowledge to know if he was talking sense or bollocks, but for now I will give him the benefit of the doubt.)

          I know you have at present 6 downvotes, but that must be of people that missed your main point :)

          There is indeed an issue with being a bit too open, but I'm not sure I'd blame the BBC - it's more a lack of media awareness of the security chap in question who should have thought a bit before he published.

          If he had said "I accidentally found a kill switch but I will wait few weeks to provide details" we could accept this as part of responsible disclosure, and it would have given the rest of the world a week to plug the holes instead of probably seeing a repeat early next week which may NOT have a kill switch, or a different one).

          Oh well, we live and learn. It's easy to make mistakes when you're in the thick of it. Part of the job is remembering that you are as human as everyone else and will make mistakes, and it's easy to judge from the outside.

          1. Tom 38

            Re: infuriated those people who know a thing or six about encryption

            If he had said "I accidentally found a kill switch but I will wait few weeks to provide details" we could accept this as part of responsible disclosure, and it would have given the rest of the world a week to plug the holes

            So now we are expected to maintain responsible disclosure for malware now? What, in your mind, is the acceptable amount of time to wait before deciding that ivan@shadowbrokers just isn't going to respond and push out a fixed version of the malware before we disclose it?

            Any semantic algorithmic flaw like this in malware should be discussed widely and openly, because either the code may be reused in other malware, or might be written from scratch with the same semantic flaw.

            The only flaw that needs to be plugged is the one in Windows; MS released the patch in March, the vulnerability was disclosed in April, and now in May people who don't patch their systems are crying.

    4. cambsukguy

      Re: infuriated those people who know a thing or six about encryption

      If each individual device had a separate 'backdoor' encryption key that was random and unique to that device, created at manufacture and only stored by (say) the FBI/NSA/GCHQ or something then the only way to gain access to all devices would be to steal the entire file system holding the records, which would hardly be kept in one place anyway.

      Since a theft like that would mean the FBI et al was compromised, it is hardly a real risk.

      I think people think a back door is a single password or key, the same for all machines, which would be dumb as shit obviously.

      But a unique key for every devices' CPU?, can't see how it would allow black hats in at all.

      Not saying I agree, don't really, really see the need, the UK has serious penalties for those that refuse to open their devices so it is really just terrorists and crime-lords that are a target - they would probably just add an encryption app for sensitive data.

      Added to the fact that WhatsApp and such encrypt their messages anyway, there is already double encryption, although I am not sure if messages are held in plain text on the device (notwithstanding device storage encryption), seems unlikely.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: infuriated those people who know a thing or six about encryption

        But a unique key for every devices' CPU?, can't see how it would allow black hats in at all.

        Oh really? Ever heard of password files being stolen? Same thing - you will have to store that collection somewhere, and governments have been proven to be utterly incapable to keep such things safe.

        1. Trigonoceps occipitalis

          Re: infuriated those people who know a thing or six about encryption

          I'm glad that my post ignited some discussion about compromised crypto systems. (Bet you can't guess my views?)

          Still no citing of a proof one way or another. That doesn't surprise me, if there is one it is probably highly classified because it will reveal state of the art of whichever state funded the research.

          Key escrow is a perfect theoretical "back door". However in practical implementation it is vulnerable to: hacking; espionage; incompetence; idiocy; political expediency; bad programming; unpatched systems; etc.

          I also make the point that even in "liberal" Western democracies the protection of the law is not a given.

      2. Pascal Monett Silver badge

        Interesting idea

        Let's imagine one moment that such a scheme is indeed implemented. You say yourself that a key is to be created "at manufacture" - ie in a private company.

        Private companies are hacked all the time - sometimes from the inside. If this scheme was implemented, the incentive to hack them would be multiplied a hundred-fold. They already have trouble coping now, so add 100x the pressure and it won't be good.

        You go on to say that the file system holding the records would "hardly be kept in one place anyway". I read that to mean "there will be multiple points to gain access to it", and we know about how solid a chain is. Sorry, but you're not reassuring me there. In addition, let's just imagine that this "file system" existed ; do you really think that countries like Russia or China would not have a copy ? Given the current blackhat climate, add the corruption that exists in those countries and I think we're headed straight for publication of that list on the dark web with regular updates.

        And that's how such a system would virtually allow blackhat egress into everything.

        Beside that, there's the fact that blackhats are hardly the only threat, in today's security landscape. The NSA is one humongous effing threat on its own, has been for decades apparently, and I'm not okay with the idea that one NSA goon can tap into my phone calls at will today without a warrant and without my being notified (you see, I don't live in the US and I'm not of US nationality).

        This key scheme would multiply that by every single country that had access to such files - whether official or not (you know what spies do for a living, right ?).

        I do not subscribe to your optimism, and that is the understatement of the week at least.

      3. John Smith 19 Gold badge
        WTF?

        " created at manufacture and only stored by (say) the FBI/NSA/GCHQ"

        And you don't see the flaw in this cunning plan, following the Edward Snowden documents release?

        Think carefully.

      4. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: infuriated those people who know a thing or six about encryption

        > If each individual device had a separate 'backdoor' encryption key that was random and unique to that device, created at manufacture and only stored by (say) the FBI/NSA/GCHQ or something then the only way to gain access to all devices would be to steal the entire file system holding the records, which would hardly be kept in one place anyway.

        Wish that was the only way it was true. It's far more likely that once a single such key is in the wild, miscreants would use it to gain access to systems (the first layer). And lo-and-behold other systems connected to them would turn out to have not-perfect-security. For example:

        * unpatched holes

        * zero days

        * not really secured servers

        * or just plain traffic available for sniffing

        So further special backdoors wouldn't be needed. They'd be helpful sure, but needed... not really.

      5. gnasher729 Silver badge

        Re: infuriated those people who know a thing or six about encryption

        "Since a theft like that would mean the FBI et al was compromised, it is hardly a real risk."

        The NSA was compromised. Compared to the NSA, the FBI are amateurs. If they had any backdoor, they would be compromised.

      6. TSG
        Joke

        Re: infuriated those people who know a thing or six about encryption

        Because data has /never/ been stolen from any of the US TLAs.

        Nope. Never.

    5. Truckle The Uncivil

      Re: infuriated those people who know a thing or six about encryption

      @Trigonoceps Occipitalis

      I think the current attacks using NSA authored weaponry just totalled the idea of a 'safe back door'. The 'cops' just showed they cannot handle one.

    6. gnasher729 Silver badge

      Re: infuriated those people who know a thing or six about encryption

      "What I want to know is whether there is a peer reviewed proof that a secure back doored system is impossible? "

      There is practical evidence. A back doored system is secure as long as the back door itself is secure, and as long as those in possession of the back door keep it secure.

      Over the weekend thousands of computers have been viciously attacked, among them many system of the UK health care system NHS. The software used for these attacks was stolen from the NSA. If miscreants can steal attack software from the NSA, that's enough evidence to show that there is no such thing as a secure backdoor, because even the NSA could keep it secure if they were in possession of that back door. And as far as cyber security is concerned, compared to the NSA the FBI is made up of rank amateurs.

  7. allthecoolshortnamesweretaken

    Re: Comey's side of the story - I kinda hope that the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence will want to hear it. Let's say they subpoena him, and let him testify under oath in camera. That way Comey should be safe from official allegations* of disclosing stuff he isn't supposed to - what can he do, he's under oath... and what he tells the committee isn't supposed to be made public... nudge nudge, wink wink.

    * Other than enraged 3am tweets by The Beloved Leader of The Free World, obviously.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      That way Comey should be safe from official allegations* of disclosing stuff he isn't supposed to

      Like the fact that Trump canned him because Comey would swear to be personally loyal to Trump? That he, instead, chose to be loyal to the FBI and the law? Which, in Trumps eyes, appears to be a fatal character flaw.

  8. Hollerithevo

    FBI in turmoil -- you know that, I know that--

    I never heard they were in turmoil. Fake statement hoping to be taken as actual fact?

    1. PhilipN Silver badge

      Re: FBI in turmoil -- you know that, I know that--

      The banner headline on the BBC website after the news broke was "Washington in Turmoil" in unusually large typeface. That's the kind of hysterical reportage from a supposedly staid and reliable source which almost makes me understand Trump's antipathy towards the news media. I thought I'd gone to the Daily MIrror by mistake.

      1. DavCrav

        Re: FBI in turmoil -- you know that, I know that--

        "The banner headline on the BBC website after the news broke was "Washington in Turmoil" in unusually large typeface. That's the kind of hysterical reportage from a supposedly staid and reliable source which almost makes me understand Trump's antipathy towards the news media. I thought I'd gone to the Daily MIrror by mistake."

        Washington is in turmoil though. What do you call the President firing the head of the FBI, who was investigating potential treason by him, allegedly for not investigating the other candidate in the race further, but then later admitting it was because he was investigating the White House? I mean, what has to happen for it to be turmoil in your eyes?

      2. VulcanV5

        Re: FBI in turmoil -- you know that, I know that--

        Slightly OTT, I know, but BBC journalism is an oxymoron. I've just Red Buttoned the Sunday news index and found in 'World News' that a, uh, 'tourist bus' fell off a cliff. Fell off though, presumably after a failure of equilibrium a la The Italian Job. Anyway. Large vehicle, overwhelmed by gravity.

        Read on though, and 23 people in said large vehicle are dead. Oh. Read even further though, and it will be discovered that (a) the crash happened in Turkey and (b) 'no foreign tourists' are amongst the dead. Now, had this been in the UK:

        'Dozens Killed In Bus Crash Horror As Cyberspace Attack Continues'

        or, in the USA:

        'At Least 90 Dead In Bus Crash Terror Attack As Leaderless FBI Reels In Shock'.

        Heigh-ho. To think that, back in 1929, Claude Cockburn's attempted (but unpublished) Times headline of "Small Earthquake In Chile, Not Many Dead" was journalistic humour at its most mordant, whereas now 'Bus Falls Off Cliff But It Was Only Full Of Turks' is BBC journalism at its best.

        At £340,000 a year, BBC news supremo James Harding clearly deserves every British penny stumped up by UK licence payers..

  9. Nick Kew

    "unlikely supporters"

    With reference to the suggestion that Comey has "unlikely supporters" including the EFF ...

    Being concerned about the way he was dismissed doesn't make one a Comey supporter.

    1. Alt C

      Re: "unlikely supporters"

      Unfortunatly Nick in our post truth, fake news world - you can't be that nuanced anymore - object to the usurption of a process you have to support the person it was used against.

      Dislike the dumbing down of politics to soundbites - you're elitist.

      Want a reasonable debate where people don't just shout over each other on politics shows? - good luck finding that. Leave alone the despair I feel seeing any discussion on politics dissolve into silly name calling.

      Want facts with your politics? - your an intellectual in a world where people are fed up with 'experts' and their boring knowledge of things.

      It seems thinking has become passe in this age.

  10. John Smith 19 Gold badge
    Unhappy

    "Key Escrow" IIRC that was the "Clipper" chip mentioned in "South Park, The Movie"

    And viewed at the time by the security industry as a prime PoS.

  11. PhilipN Silver badge

    LSD microdosing?

    And this we know how? Enquiring minds etc

    P.S. Good article

    1. Anonymous Coward
  12. Florida1920

    To live inside the law

    You must be honest. Sorry for the misquote, Bob.

    The major reason FBI can't have drug users is, using illegal drugs is a Federal offense, even if some states allow recreational use of marijuana. An FBI employee who uses illegal drugs is a perfect target for blackmail, and there is no end of drug dealers who'd love to get an FBI employee in their pocket. J. Edgar Hoover was paranoid, but insisting his agents be squeaky clean was smart.

    FBI might consider using contractors, but after seeing how that worked out for NSA, they're probably leery of taking that step.

  13. martinusher Silver badge

    Typical straight arrow law enforcement

    Comey was a law enforcement professional, someone who was straight, honest and (unfortunately) easily played. Which is what happened with the October Surprise. The original Clinton email 'scandal' grew out of innumerable Benghazi investigations and like everything else Clinton (Bill and Hilary) it was blown out of all proportion as part of everyday politics in the USofA. Comey did due diligence on it, decided it was a bunch of hot air in July and put it to one side. The October emails weren't even Clinton (Secretary of State) related.

    But that was then. Now you have him turning his attention to the present administration. Plodding on doggedly. I personally thought there wasn't anything particularly interesting in the whole Russia/Trump thing but the firing suggests otherwise.

    1. Geoffrey W

      Re: Typical straight arrow law enforcement

      There was also the firing of US Attorney Preet Bharara in southern district NY. He was investigating alleged laundering of Russian money through various real estate and property developer operations; ie trumps main business area. This doesn't seem to have hit the news in the same way but probably deserves the same scrutiny. All the money and outrage expended on Benghazi and Whitewater never got anywhere. This does all seem to be getting much more promising and interesting much more quickly. Everything Trump does is always the best - even his scandals it appears.

      1. Rich 11

        Re: Typical straight arrow law enforcement

        Everything Trump does is always the best - even his scandals it appears.

        They'll be yuge.

  14. 2StrokeRider

    High time the wanker was kicked out. Meddled with elections but wouldn't prosecute, spend millions on investigations that went no where (into both parties). Someone should have been checking out HIS Russian connections, as it seems if they wanted to muck with US elections, they did right enough with Comey.

  15. Sanctimonious Prick
    Joke

    Russia

    Comey should fly to Hong Kong, then get a temporary Russian visa!

  16. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Comey should have been fired long ago, and DPA Rosentein's paper lays out the reasons why.

    From my own perspective, this one act alone justifies the firing: Jill McCabe, Andrew McCabe's wife accepted $ 500,000 from Clinton associate Terry McAullife for her own failed campaign. Comey subsequently put Andrew McCabe in charge of the Clinton investigation. The appearance of a conflict of interest at best, of a payoff at worst, should result in the firing of both.

    1. veti Silver badge

      And yet, not only Rosenstein's letter, but also Spicer's and Trump's combined efforts at laying out a justification, have all signally failed to mention this story.

      I also note that when then-candidate Trump told it, last October, he described it as Clinton giving money to the wife of the official who was already investigating her.

      So which is it? Can't be both, the stories are mutually contradictory.

      I also note that McAuliffe is also a significant politician in his own right, he's the governor of a major state, and no doubt gives money to many of his party's proteges. He has had no particular connection to the Clintons since 2008, though doubtless they're still friends, and there's no actual evidence to suggest that this money was in any way Clinton-related. Just insinuation.

      Oh, what am I say, of course that is evidence. In Trumpistan.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        have all signally failed to mention this story.

        I thought I was pretty clear that the McCabe reason on its own was one I thought justified the firing - I don't know why you are dragging in Trump, Spicer et al.

        At one time we thought that where the law is concerned there should not even be the appearance of a possible conflict of interest. Ethical people in that situation routinely recused themselves from the case or investigation where there might be that appearance.

        It has nothing to do with evidence or proof. I find it dismaying that these concepts are so foreign to people commenting here.

        1. Geoffrey W

          Re: have all signally failed to mention this story.

          RE: "At one time we thought that where the law is concerned there should not even be the appearance of a possible conflict of interest."

          Quite. So the more than appearance of personal motivation in the firing of Comey, as admitted both by Trump and his spokesperson (not Spicer, a woman whose name escapes me at the moment), that he was fired in attempt to make the Russian inquiry go away faster, should be quite a cause for concern. That's why Trump is being brought into it.

  17. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    The great cheeto is winning

    The press haven't yet caught up to the game he is playing.

    Once they do, he's toast.

  18. Tronald Dump
  19. Santuna

    Sigh...

    Love how the author just had to take time out for an irrelevant and highly questionable jab at Clinton. I don't see how anyone can pull their head out from the barrage of press about how 'unlikeable' she is, spend five minutes listening to the woman herself without prejudice, and still insist nobody likes her. Except I lie - I do see, because there's nothing new about prominent women being held to impossible standards.

  20. Florida1920

    Comey: loathed by the left, reviled by the right

    warped by the rain, driven by the snow ....

    But he was willin' (to follow up) and that's what got him fired. He followed up on Clinton, found nothing indictable, and said so. Sure looks like Trump thought he wouldn't get off so easily.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like