Head of the FBI attacks privacy advocates but admits to blocking his own webcam.

Why The FBI Director Puts Tape Over His Webcam.

FBI Director James Comey gave a speech this week about encryption and privacy, repeating his argument that "absolute privacy" hampers law enforcement.

But it was an offhand remark during the Q&A session at Kenyon College that caught the attention of privacy activists:

"I saw something in the news, so I copied it. I put a piece of tape — I have obviously a laptop, personal laptop — I put a piece of tape over the camera. Because I saw somebody smarter than I am had a piece of tape over their camera."

It's certainly not unreasonable to worry about webcams, especially for someone as high-profile as Comey. The FBI itself has used malware to hack into cameras to spy on targets.

For privacy activists, the real problem is what they see as Comey's hypocrisy. He says tech companies shouldn't make devices that are "unhackable" to law enforcement (the fight over the San Bernardino iPhone 5C being the major case in point), but the activists say that's exactly what he's done with his personal webcam.

Typical isnt it?

If you or I value privacy, its because we have something to hide or because we're criminals.

But if he values privacy, its normal.

What he's really saying (without saying it), is that he does not trust his own government.

Which is an incredible statement coming from the head of the FBI.

Next time someone accuses you of being "paranoid" about government spying, just say, "what are you talking about, the head of the FBI is no different".

I like how "they" are called "targets" and not suspects.
Suspect:
"Have an idea or impression of the existence, presence, or truth of (something) without certain proof:"
Target:
"A person, object, or place selected as the aim of an attack."
Oxford Dictionary
Oxford Dictionary 2

a reply to: gladtobehere
Ha! Yea, typical! I get accused of being paranoid but that is okay by me. I do not even know where the camera hole is on this new computer I got(which was a gift, no way I would pay for this!) Oh yikes ok I just found it. Anyway, thanks for the info. Much peace to you -nat

Here's my litmus test on federal government related stuff: does the average llocal, small town sheriff agree with them? If not, neither do i.

if they do, then Ill at least consider it.

My own local sheriff is a good barometer, in my experience. Yeah, he's an SOB in his own way. But on the grand scale, he's definitely in the top 90% of humanity as far as ethics goes.

a reply to: gladtobehere

I think he blocks his camera from Hackers.

Not the government.


More than just the government spy on people.


In fact I'd suggest that as an FBI head he is a target of a myriad of hackers from Anon, to Mossad, to Russia, to ISIS...


I don't think he fears his own government.

It's specious to connect the two...
Meaning it sounds plausible, but likely isn't true.


My 2 pennies worth.

This is one of the many things I detest about our government, the whole "Do as I say, not as I do" attitude. It's fine for them to spy on us "little people", but their privacy is sacred. I would bet Mr FBI has all the latest and best malware/spyware out there, along with a few special tweaks by their pet computer geeks. All at the expense of We The People, of course. Can't have him getting a bug while surfing kiddie porn. Here's my test for their honesty : Let's see your personal laptop. Let's see what they are searching for on the internet and what videos they're watching.
You can bet they'll scream about privacy rights then.

People need to stop masturbating in front of their computers. Dude ... seriously.

You think they're going to forget that shizz once they develop AI. They might already have it ... are too smart to show it ... and are snickering behind Comey's back to each other. How do you pronounce his name again? K 'oh' mee or cum ee? LOL

a reply to: gladtobehere

although written about another subject, i think this song fits nicely. also if you know the story of the song and how it came about, it kinda does fit.

a reply to: hounddoghowlie

it kinda does fit.

Pink Floyd fits in anywhere. You don't need a reason.

Its a basic thing i've told loads of people to do, its the cheapest and most secure method of ensuring no one can see whats in front of the lappy, some parents think its daft till i mention that there is a chance that while the kids got their laptop out doing school work etc and they decide to get changed etc that theres a chance some perv's copping an eyeful of their daughters bits and normally that works well.

I'd imagine he probably has classified information and even if his lappy has nothing on it who knows what someone could find out while watching him reading a document.

That man could just say your name and get the last years browser history for any one of you- Plus your phone records, text messages, credit card purchase history, GPS location (if you carry a smartphone), internet aliases, voting history, and what you watch on the tube- both on and off the computer. (FYI, digital cable means streaming, which means they can track which set is playing which stream- combined with location data from your phone- or even BT awareness from the set)

Supposedly he still needs to file paperwork for all of that, of course. Not even half as shady as the NSA, who likely already keeps that information in a handy little database about you, which also includes a complete record of everyone you know and when you've interacted with them.


And you my friends are paying for this- If you work a five day week, they take one and a half of those days from you off the top so they can afford to do this to you.

Insanity- and now it's gone too far for anything short of a full scale collapse to stop.

originally posted by: Hazardous1408
a reply to: gladtobehere

I think he blocks his camera from Hackers.

Not the government.


More than just the government spy on people.


In fact I'd suggest that as an FBI head he is a target of a myriad of hackers from Anon, to Mossad, to Russia, to ISIS...


I don't think he fears his own government.

It's specious to connect the two...
Meaning it sounds plausible, but likely isn't true.


My 2 pennies worth.

But why shouldn't we connect putting tape over a lens and being unable to get into the phone of somebody who just shot up their office? Totally the same thing man!

While I get the notion that the Feds being able to easily access anybody's phone, anywhere, anytime is way out of line, I think trying to link these two comments is looking for something to be offended about and cry "hypocrite!"

Well of course official secrecy takes precedent over personal privacy. After all, 'public office' is private now and the public isn't… anymore.