zlacker

Might you share an example of what leads you to believe that Comey is capable of acknowledging when he's gotten things wrong, changing course, and moving on? I've never had the chance to meet him but even General Hayden's remarks on Comey seem less glowing than yours. For example, while Hayden does describe Comey as a "very competent" and "very honourable man", Benjamin Wittes, in a conversation with Hayden, described some "not so veiled hostility to Comey" in Hayden's recent book [0]. Hayden has, in my view, been able to weigh the national security benefits on encryption alongside the national security risks. I've never once heard Comey speak with any degree of clarity or comfort on the issue, and has instead doggedly pursued his goal of ensuring the FBI's access into content data. Thus, I've described him as a 'one-track-mind kind of guy'.

Well, I'm not sure if my comment about "the worst kinds of cops" is necessarily hyperbolic or even emotional, but I can see how it does make having 'purely rational discourse' more difficult. Surely, a singular focus and unwillingness to consider the validity of alternative perspectives is not unique to some members of the law enforcement community, but I think that the shorthand I employed does cut to the core of my understanding of Comey; He doesn't understand this issue as well as the technology experts who, virtually uniformly, disagree with his position on crypto.

[0] Hayden did rebuff that characterization, though I think the public forum might have had something to do with it.

>>kobaya+(OP)
I wish I could provide such an example in good conscience, but a (very broad) NDA with a former employer precludes me from doing so. They might not mind, and he might not mind - but I would have gone back on my word, which I definitely would mind.

I know that this reduces the strength of my argument to essentially "nuh-uh!" ... sorry. But I will tell you that, when he says (in that keynote address) that he is willing to explore the possibility that he could be wrong - I believe that he is being completely honest.

As to your description of his "singular focus and unwillingness to consider the validity of alternative perspectives" - that just doesn't seem accurate at all; it describes neither this speech nor his observable approach at large. It does, however, remind me of a funny pinterest picture/quote:

"Once you hate someone, everything they do is offensive. 'Look at this bitch, eating those crackers like she owns the place'. "

>>thotpo+X9
lol, good quote. To be clear, I don't hate the guy.

One of the first times I heard him speak was in late 2014 and he was essentially arguing for all the same things that he argues now: "I don't know how the tech community is going to do it, but they're smart, and they can build in secure access for law enforcement". He still completely ignores the national security implications of such a precedent, and he also ignores the fact that, over and over again, crypto experts are telling him that the community has enough trouble building secure systems at the moment, and adding access to third parties is likely to exponentially weaken system security.