FBI Director James Comey Responds To Vault 7 Revelations by stating, "There is no such thing as absolute privacy in America"

While at the Boston Conference on cyber security yesterday, FBI director James Comey responded to the Vault 7 revelations, and his responses should worry us all.

I know that this may shock some of you, but he took the time to explain how these types of programs are making everyone safer and are necessary to maintain order. His attitude has been extremely similar to that of many other officials after proof came about exposing their unlawful operations. There were numerous statements that he made that simply left me mind-boggled. Every time I hear an official taking such a firm stance against ensuring their citizens privacy, it really makes me contemplate how anyone could actually hold the beliefs that the director seems to hold. He led into his beliefs that American's don't deserve digital privacy by stating the following.

"The general principle is always something we have accepted in this country, there is no such thing as absolute privacy within America. There is no place in America outside of judicial reach. That's the bargain. We made that bargain over two centuries age to achieve two goals. To achieve the very important goal of privacy, and to achieve the very important goal of security. "  -James Comey

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="

" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

In order for a relationship to be considered a "bargain", all parties must consent to the deal, or at the very least know about it. 

The fallacies and flaws of this statement are so incredibly flawed I don't even know where to begin. The biggest fallacy of this statement is likely the idea that the American people are somehow in a bargain regarding these types of operations. For this type of relationship to be considered a bargain, individuals would have to be fully aware and conscious of the deal that they are making. Every time that a major leak occurs officials commonly turn to the fact that its just "the cost of using the internet of a cell phone in today's day in age". If any officials actually believed that individuals were willing to make this bargain in exchange for the "right" to use digital devices, then why is it that we never hear about any of these programs or "bargains" that the citizens of the US are in until after the programs are exposed.

 If officials truly thought that individuals were willing to sacrifice such a great deal of their personal privacy in return for a minuscule chance of increasing safety in the short term, then these programs would not be so hidden and closed. Officials love to tout phrase "If you aren't doing anything wrong, then you have nothing to worry about", and all I can say to that is that the agencies conducting these undercover programs should keep that in mind. If they truly thought that they were doing what the majority of people wanted, then what logical reason would they have from withholding the information from the public?

Giving up privacy for security is something we have accepted for over 200 years? Really?

If the framers and constructors of the US constitution believed that individuals must be willing to sacrifice their privacy for the "security" of society than why were so many amendments added specifically to protect people from surveillance by their own government. The reason that it is illegal for the United States postal service to open citizens mail is because the founders saw the danger that would come along with government surveillance of their citizen's communications. The modes of communication has evolved, but why would that have any impact on the principles on which it was based? Making statements such as this are just another attempt to divert attention away from the governments wrongdoing and rather than owning up and accepting it, they forcefully push the ideals that these types of programs are necessary, justified, and legal. If individuals were willing to make this trade off, why would they be left completely in the dark regarding their government's actions?

These "bargains" do not achieve the goal of security, and eliminate any potential for personal privacy. 

How could the director of the FBI respond stating that one of their main goals is achieving privacy, when the government is the sole reason for the abundant lack of privacy in today's world. I have seen numerous interviews of former CIA and other agency personnel who discuss how damaging leaks like this are to them, and how they help the "bad guys" become more advanced and change tactics. This is simply in an effort to draw public opinion onto the side of government surveillance, and make individuals believe that these types of programs are actually improving the safety of the country. When a government or society sacrifices personal privacy in the name of security, neither will be achieved. 

The trust in the government agencies is likely to continue to plummet, but what do they expect? When you treat your citizens as if they are cattle rather than individuals and use your extreme government resources to achieve your specific goals, the public should loose all faith and trust in you. These operations achieve their goals without the consent of individuals and through force. Achieving these goals by force doesn't equate to physical force in this case, but using greater resources than others to achieve your specific goal without public knowledge or consent is the very definition of force. 

video source:1

image source:1