From the memo Comey wrote about meeting with Reince Priebus:
"He said he understood and then asked me what I would talk to Denis McDonough about. I said two kinds of things: policy, like Going Dark, and particular operational Issues if we were facing a terror threat or there was an intelligence operation that was sensitive. "
"policy, like Going Dark"
The FBI’s “Going Dark” Initiative
The FBI’s “Going Dark” initiative is a recent attempt to extend the requirements mandated in CALEA to require internet based communication providers such as Google, Facebook, Twitter, Skype, and Blackberry, to reprogram their encryptions within their communication systems to have a backdoor for legal wiretapping.
The term “Going Dark” refers to a phenomenon where criminals use encrypted communication to evade being detected by law enforcement (Homeland Security Committee, 2016). The threat of criminals going dark was always of concern to the United States intelligence community. In 2015, the concerns surrounding encryption communication surged following the terrorist attacks in Paris and San Bernardino where it was determined that the attackers used encrypted forms of communication to avoid identification.
P169-171
"Mr. Parmiter. All right. I'm going to show you one more document here, which we're going to mark as exhibit 8.
Mr. Rybicki. Thank you.
[Rybicki Exhibit No. 8 Was marked for identification.]
Mr. Parmiter. Do you recognize that document?
Mr. Rybicki. I don't readily recognize it, but it appears to be an email, again, with the same talking points and me forwarding it to .
Mr. Parmiter. Who is [Redacted]?
Mr. Rybicki. [Redacted] was a special government employee of the FBI, who -- he's a professor at -- the institution popped out of my head, in New York.
Mr. Parmiter. [Redacted] Law School?
Mr. Rybicki. [Redacted] Law School. A professor at [Redacted] Law School, who served as a special government employee to the FBI.
Mr. Parmiter. Okay. So what is a special government employee?
Mr. Rybicki. It is a designation, so it's an unpaid position. I don't know all of the parameters surrounding it. So he had a memorandum of understanding and was working on various projects for the FBI. He had a clearance and badge access to the building, but didn't -- you know, he didn't work full time or, you know, have an office in the building, that type of thing.
Mr. Parmiter. And what were the circumstances that led to Mr. [Redacted] being a -- being brought onboard as a special government employee?
Mr. Rybicki. Director Comey had asked to bring him on to help with some special projects.
Mr. Parmiter. Is that fairly frequent? I mean, is that a rare occurrence or is it a frequent occurrence that special government employees come on at the behest of the Director?
Mr. Rybicki. He was the only one that we brought on during the time.
Mr. Parmiter. Are you aware of any other special government employees at the FBI at any time?
Mr. Rybicki. I am not.
Mr. Parmiter. Okay. What was the nature of Director Comey's sort of relationship with Mr. [Redacted] while he was at the FBI?
Mr. Rybicki. I don't know if it would be fair for me to characterize it. I don't know the extent of their communications. Again, he was brought on to work on some special projects, mostly in an advisory capacity, but I don't know it'd be fair for me to characterize.
Mr. Parmiter. Were any of the special projects the investigation we've been talking about today?
Mr. Rybicki. No. The biggest special project was the Going Dark initiative. "
A white paper prepared by a student is a good read (so far). It gives background about the history of laws related to data surveillance and seizure by law enforcement from Title III to CALEA to PATRIOT to FREEDOM to the FBI "Going Dark" initiative.
It then points out 4 ethical difficulties, discussing each. Just an excerpt as example: "Specifically, this study identifies four ethical challenges associated with the “Going Dark” initiative: (1) the negative ramifications for private communication companies, (2) the potential increase in the domestic terrorism threat, (3) international exploitation, and (4) the possibility for abuse. ... The third ethical challenge stemming from the proposed “Going Dark” strategy is the potential for foreign government exploitation. ...Based on the recent programs implemented by the Chinese government, especially in terms of their recent 2015 counterterrorism law, it is clear that one of the focuses of the current administration is to strictly regulate “untrustworthy” foreign technology companies. International law firms studying the newly enacted Chinese counterterrorism law have started to warn American technology companies that China has the capability to legally demand source codes, encryption keys, and other crucial forms of information regarding communication servers from foreign technology companies currently operating in China (Alsabah, 2017). "
Reminds me of "Going Dark" and a SGE of James Comey.
https://vault.fbi.gov/daniel-richman/daniel-richman-part-01-of-15/view
From the memo Comey wrote about meeting with Reince Priebus:
"He said he understood and then asked me what I would talk to Denis McDonough about. I said two kinds of things: policy, like Going Dark, and particular operational Issues if we were facing a terror threat or there was an intelligence operation that was sensitive. "
"policy, like Going Dark"
P169-171
"Mr. Parmiter. All right. I'm going to show you one more document here, which we're going to mark as exhibit 8.
Mr. Rybicki. Thank you.
[Rybicki Exhibit No. 8 Was marked for identification.]
Mr. Parmiter. Do you recognize that document?
Mr. Rybicki. I don't readily recognize it, but it appears to be an email, again, with the same talking points and me forwarding it to .
Mr. Parmiter. Who is [Redacted]?
Mr. Rybicki. [Redacted] was a special government employee of the FBI, who -- he's a professor at -- the institution popped out of my head, in New York.
Mr. Parmiter. [Redacted] Law School?
Mr. Rybicki. [Redacted] Law School. A professor at [Redacted] Law School, who served as a special government employee to the FBI.
Mr. Parmiter. Okay. So what is a special government employee?
Mr. Rybicki. It is a designation, so it's an unpaid position. I don't know all of the parameters surrounding it. So he had a memorandum of understanding and was working on various projects for the FBI. He had a clearance and badge access to the building, but didn't -- you know, he didn't work full time or, you know, have an office in the building, that type of thing.
Mr. Parmiter. And what were the circumstances that led to Mr. [Redacted] being a -- being brought onboard as a special government employee?
Mr. Rybicki. Director Comey had asked to bring him on to help with some special projects.
Mr. Parmiter. Is that fairly frequent? I mean, is that a rare occurrence or is it a frequent occurrence that special government employees come on at the behest of the Director?
Mr. Rybicki. He was the only one that we brought on during the time.
Mr. Parmiter. Are you aware of any other special government employees at the FBI at any time?
Mr. Rybicki. I am not.
Mr. Parmiter. Okay. What was the nature of Director Comey's sort of relationship with Mr. [Redacted] while he was at the FBI?
Mr. Rybicki. I don't know if it would be fair for me to characterize it. I don't know the extent of their communications. Again, he was brought on to work on some special projects, mostly in an advisory capacity, but I don't know it'd be fair for me to characterize.
Mr. Parmiter. Were any of the special projects the investigation we've been talking about today?
Mr. Rybicki. No. The biggest special project was the Going Dark initiative. "
A white paper prepared by a student is a good read (so far). It gives background about the history of laws related to data surveillance and seizure by law enforcement from Title III to CALEA to PATRIOT to FREEDOM to the FBI "Going Dark" initiative.
It then points out 4 ethical difficulties, discussing each. Just an excerpt as example: "Specifically, this study identifies four ethical challenges associated with the “Going Dark” initiative: (1) the negative ramifications for private communication companies, (2) the potential increase in the domestic terrorism threat, (3) international exploitation, and (4) the possibility for abuse. ... The third ethical challenge stemming from the proposed “Going Dark” strategy is the potential for foreign government exploitation. ...Based on the recent programs implemented by the Chinese government, especially in terms of their recent 2015 counterterrorism law, it is clear that one of the focuses of the current administration is to strictly regulate “untrustworthy” foreign technology companies. International law firms studying the newly enacted Chinese counterterrorism law have started to warn American technology companies that China has the capability to legally demand source codes, encryption keys, and other crucial forms of information regarding communication servers from foreign technology companies currently operating in China (Alsabah, 2017). "