Category Archives: DOJ, DC and inside the Beltway

Chilling, the Government’s Destruction of Privacy

Posted on by

We have all witnessed the matter of Edward Snowden’s war on the NSA and the destruction of our now feeble expectation of privacy. Before Snowden there was Julian Assange and Wikileaks sending a message to spying and governments violations of law.

There are other victims in the casualty of Snowden that jobs, livelihoods and threats of death. There are many moving parts and they most certainly include other world leaders and the very common citizen’s basic forms of communications that include phone calls, internet searches, locations, and emails. There is no where to hide much less no full-proof layers of protections. We are all Taliban or part of a fractured terror cell regardless of where we are or who we think we are safely communicating with much less who we think we can trust. Pathetic condition and no one in our own U.S government is giving us any form of hope or protection.

The NSA along with a handful of other countries are in collusion with each other to facilitate the complete communications dragnet not only for the sake of imposed national security, but also in the cases of narcotics trafficking, weapons smuggling and human-trafficking. The NSA and the FBI spy on U.S. citizens without our knowledge or approval, our credit/debit card purchases are monitored, our bank accounts are under scrutiny, actually nothing is exempt.

Only recently has it been revealed that the NSA is using the dragnet system beyond Germany, it reaches to Mexico, Bahamas and the Philippines. To be sure there are others.

I am partial to the encrypted services, when needed of Silent Circle, but there are others out there like Lavabit. In the wake of destruction left behind on the initial matter of Edward Snowden, both encryption services have been legally assaulted by the U.S. government and have had to alter their respective business models under the full weight and power of the Federal government.  A chilling account of Lavabit is just now being revealed due in part that some parts of the gag orders have been lifted on its founder Ladar Levison.

NSA

Levison contributed his account of ‘hell’ to the Guardian.

Secrets, lies and Snowden’s email: why I was forced to shut down Lavabit

My legal saga started last summer with a knock at the door, behind which stood two federal agents ready to to serve me with a court order requiring the installation of surveillance equipment on my company’s network.

My company, Lavabit, provided email services to 410,000 people – including Edward Snowden, according to news reports – and thrived by offering features specifically designed to protect the privacy and security of its customers. I had no choice but to consent to the installation of their device, which would hand the US government access to all of the messages – to and from all of my customers – as they travelled between their email accounts other providers on the Internet.

But that wasn’t enough. The federal agents then claimed that their court order required me to surrender my company’s private encryption keys, and I balked. What they said they needed were customer passwords – which were sent securely – so that they could access the plain-text versions of messages from customers using my company’s encrypted storage feature. (The government would later claim they only made this demand because of my “noncompliance”.)

Bothered by what the agents were saying, I informed them that I would first need to read the order they had just delivered – and then consult with an attorney. The feds seemed surprised by my hesitation.

What ensued was a flurry of legal proceedings that would last 38 days, ending not only my startup but also destroying, bit by bit, the very principle upon which I founded it – that we all have a right to personal privacy.

In the first two weeks, I was served legal papers a total of seven times and was in contact with the FBI every other day. (This was the period a prosecutor would later characterize as my “period of silence”.) It took a week for me to identify an attorney who could adequately represent me, given the complex technological and legal issues involved – and we were in contact for less than a day when agents served me with a summons ordering me to appear in a Virginia courtroom, over 1,000 miles from my home. Two days later, I was served the first subpoena for the encryption keys.

With such short notice, my first attorney was unable to appear alongside me in court. Because the whole case was under seal, I couldn’t even admit to anyone who wasn’t an attorney that I needed a lawyer, let alone why. In the days before my appearance, I would spend hours repeating the facts of the case to a dozen attorneys, as I sought someone else that was qualified to represent me. I also discovered that as a third party in a federal criminal indictment, I had no right to counsel. After all, only my property was in jeopardy – not my liberty. Finally, I was forced to choose between appearing alone or facing a bench warrant for my arrest.

In Virginia, the government replaced its encryption key subpoena with a search warrant and a new court date. I retained a small, local law firm before I went back to my home state, which was then forced to assemble a legal strategy and file briefs in just a few short days. The court barred them from consulting outside experts about either the statutes or the technology involved in the case. The court didn’t even deliver transcripts of my first appearance to my own lawyers for two months, and forced them to proceed without access to the information they needed.

Then, a federal judge entered an order of contempt against me – without even so much as a hearing.

But the judge created a loophole: without a hearing, I was never given the opportunity to object, let alone make any any substantive defense, to the contempt change. Without any objection (because I wasn’t allowed a hearing), the appellate court waived consideration of the substantive questions my case raised – and upheld the contempt charge, on the grounds that I hadn’t disputed it in court. Since the US supreme court traditionally declines to review decided on wholly procedural grounds, I will be permanently denied justice.

In the meantime, I had a hard decision to make. I had not devoted 10 years of my life to building Lavabit, only to become complicit in a plan which I felt would have involved the wholesale violation of my customers’ right to privacy. Thus with no alternative, the decision was obvious: I had to shut down my company.

The largest technological question we raised in our appeal (which the courts refused to consider) was what constitutes a “search”, i.e., whether law enforcement can demand the encryption keys of a business and use those keys to inspect the private communications of every customer, even when the court has only authorized them to access information belonging to specific targets.

The problem here is technological: until any communication has been decrypted and the contents parsed, it is currently impossible for a surveillance device to determine which network connections belong to any given suspect. The government argued that, since the “inspection” of the data was to be carried out by a machine, they were exempt from the normal search-and-seizure protections of the Fourth Amendment.

More importantly for my case, the prosecution also argued that my users had no expectation of privacy, even though the service I provided – encryption – is designed for users’ privacy.

If my experience serves any purpose, it is to illustrate what most already know: courts must not be allowed to consider matters of great importance under the shroud of secrecy, lest we find ourselves summarily deprived of meaningful due process. If we allow our government to continue operating in secret, it is only a matter of time before you or a loved one find yourself in a position like I did – standing in a secret courtroom, alone, and without any of the meaningful protections that were always supposed to be the people’s defense against an abuse of the state’s power.

There are reasons to spy for sure. There are systems that can be used to protect our 1st and 4th Amendment protections. The U.S. government wants it all and our protections just be dammed.

For a very revealing legal account between the U.S Government and Levison, this is a ‘wow’ read and you are encouraged to review it as likely customers of encryption companies like Lavabit may be the next victim.

The warrant and the last Judge’s decision can be read here.

We Cant Find Them

Posted on by

The UK and several other European countries have been desperate to track down Europeans fighters that went to Syria for front line AQ training and they have returned home. This has been going on for months. Only this past week did Dianne Feinstein just say on a Sunday talk show that the domestic threat by AQ jihadi fighters is growing exponentially such that she has seen the intelligence and the United States now needs to be concerned.

Well at least Feinstein did say something and put out a feeble warning. It is also interesting that the matter of drone strikes ordered by Barack Obama on U.S citizens has come back into the news reports in a small way as there are likely some others that are slated for assassination as approved by Barack Obama.

So, it must be noted that many Americans have also traveled to Syria to get front line al Qaeda training and some too have returned home, yet our own intelligence cant find them.

AQ in American

 

Western intelligence services have been warning that European and American jihadists have been flocking to Syria to fight. But they’ve been reluctant to say how many Americans have joined the extremist forces there—until now. The latest U.S. intelligence estimates say that more than 100 Americans have joined the jihad in Syria to fight alongside Sunni terrorists there.

Senior American intelligence officials tell The Daily Beast that they believe between six and 12 Americans who have gone to Syria to fight Assad have now returned to America. “We know where some are,” one senior U.S. intelligence official told The Daily Beast. “The concern is the scale of the problem we are dealing with.”

The scale of that problem by all accounts has gotten worse. Last fall, the official U.S. estimate on Americans specifically who have joined the jihad in Syria was in the low double digits. In January, the New York Times reported that at least 70 Americans have either traveled or attempted to travel to Syria. Earlier this month FBI Director James Comey told reporters that he believed “dozens” of Americans were suspected to be foreign fighters in Syria, but declined to give a more precise number.

In recent months, the U.S. intelligence community has made the tracking of all Westerners going to fight into Syria a top priority. Speaking in March before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Matthew Olsen, the director of the National Counter-Terrorism Center, described in vague terms an effort by the whole government to find Western citizens traveling to Syria and to track their travel.

“In light of the large foreign fighter component in Syria crisis, we are working together to gather every piece of information we can about the identity of these individuals,” he said at the time.

More recently, the issue of Western foreign fighters came up in top-level meetings between the Syrian opposition delegation and the Obama administration last week to Washington, D.C.

“We view all foreign fighters as a threat and they are not welcome. There is a convergence of interests between the moderate Syrian opposition and the international community in fighting these foreign fighters and insuring they do not use Syria as a launching pad for external attacks,” said Oubai Shabandar, a strategic communications adviser to the Syrian opposition’s foreign mission in Washington. “This was a major topic of conversation this month in meetings with the Syrian opposition delegation and top U.S. officials.”

The problem, U.S. counter-terrorism and intelligence officials tell The Daily Beast, is that there are just so many jihadists with Western passports traveling to fight in Syria that they worry some of them may slip back into the United States without being detected.

“The NSA does not have the ability to track thousands of bad guys—and on the human intelligence side, this is even more difficult,” another senior U.S. intelligence official told The Daily Beast. “So we are worried that people are slipping through the cracks.”

Olsen in his March testimony said there were thousands of foreign fighters in Syria and that hundreds of those fighters held Western passports.

“This raises our concern that radicalized individuals with extremist contacts and battlefield experience could return to their home countries to commit violence on their own initiative or participate in al Qaeda-directed plots aimed at Western targets outside of Syria,” he said. Olsen also said that a group of “al Qaeda veterans” from Afghanistan and Pakistan have gone to Syria, making the prospect of recruiting new members for the organization even more likely.

Aaron Zelin, a senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy who closely tracks the flow of foreign fighters into Syria, said, “In the past when we’ve seen Americans go abroad to fight in foreign countries and a number of individuals have been trained to go back to attempt attacks on the homeland.” The best example he said is Faisal al-Shahzad, the Pakistani American who traveled to Taliban training camps in Pakistan and then attempted to set off a bomb in Times Square in 2010. Al-Shahzad failed to properly detonate his bomb and was reported to the New York police by a Muslim-American street vendor.

“It’s not just Americans who are going to Syria, but there are up to 3,000 European citizens from countries that have visa waivers with the United States who have also joined the jihad in Syria,” Zelin said. “This is why so many Western counter-terrorism officials are so worried, it’s much easier to get into our country with a Western passport.”

Those Americans that have gone off to fight in Syria also do not fit the typical terrorist profile. Last May, the Detroit Free Press reported that Nicole Lynn Mansfield, a convert to Islam, was killed in fighting in Syria fighting Assad. In April of 2013, a federal court charged Eric Harroun, a former U.S. Army private, with firing a rocket-propelled grenade while fighting alongside al-Nusra, al Qaeda’s official affiliate in Syria. If U.S. intelligence estimates are correct, these cases could be unfortunate harbingers of things to come.

In case you need more on this go here. This is a time to raise your own local situational awareness.

Next Bailout Scandal, Un-noticed

Posted on by

Shhh, but while the deadly VA mess at 27 medical facilities has taken the oxygen out of the country in recent days, we have missed a hidden bailout with regard to Obamacare. The next lie has bubbled to the surface, so here it is. Barack Obama told us that Obamacare would not cost taxpayers one dime, but last week, it is about to cost us much more than a dime.

Barack Obama once again altered the law and then he lied again….many in Congress are aware as a memo is circulating around members of Congress yet the media for the most part has ignored it. So, here it is for you. We don’t know yet the cost of the subsidies or the bailout….time to start asking bigger questions.

ppaca

 

The Obama administration has quietly adjusted key provisions of its signature healthcare law to potentially make billions of additional taxpayer dollars available to the insurance industry if companies providing coverage through the Affordable Care Act lose money.

The move was buried in hundreds of pages of new regulations issued late last week. It comes as part of an intensive administration effort to hold down premium increases for next year, a top priority for the White House as the rates will be announced ahead of this fall’s congressional elections.

Administration officials for months have denied charges by opponents that they plan a “bailout” for insurance companies providing coverage under the healthcare law.

They continue to argue that most insurers shouldn’t need to substantially increase premiums because safeguards in the healthcare law will protect them over the next several years.

But the change in regulations essentially provides insurers with another backup: If they keep rate increases modest over the next couple of years but lose money, the administration will tap federal funds as needed to cover shortfalls.

Although little noticed so far, the plan was already beginning to fuel a new round of attacks Tuesday from the healthcare law’s critics.

“If conservatives want to stop the illegal Obamacare insurance bailout before it starts they must start planning now,” wrote Conn Carroll, an editor of the right-leaning news site Townhall.com.

On Capitol Hill, Republicans on the Senate Budget Committee began circulating a memo on the issue and urging colleagues to fight what they are calling “another end-run around Congress.”

Obama administration officials said the new regulations would not put taxpayers at risk. “We are confident this three-year program will not create a shortfall,” Health and Human Services spokeswoman Erin Shields Britt said in a statement. “However, we want to be clear that in the highly unlikely event of a shortfall, HHS will use appropriations as available to fill it.”

The stakes are high for President Obama and the healthcare law.

Although more than 8 million people signed up for health coverage under the law, exceeding expectations, insurance companies in several states have been eyeing significant rate increases for next year amid concerns that their new customers are older and sicker than anticipated.

Insurers around the country have started to file proposed 2015 premiums, just as the midterm campaigns are heating up. Obamacare, as the law is often called, remains a top campaign issue, and big premium increases in states with tightly contested races could prove politically disastrous for Democrats.

If rates go up dramatically, consumers may also turn away from insurance marketplaces in some states, leading to their collapse.

Proposed increases in a few states where insurers have already filed 2015 rates have been relatively low, with several major carriers seeking just single-digit hikes. But insurers in closely watched states, such as Florida, Pennsylvania, North Carolina and Arkansas, are still preparing their filings.

“It’s absolutely paramount to keep premiums in check,” said Len Nichols, a health economist at George Mason University who has advised officials working on the law.

The state-based marketplaces, which opened last year, allow consumers who do not get health coverage at work to shop among plans that meet basic standards. Sick consumers cannot be turned away, and low- and moderate-income Americans qualify for government subsidies to offset their premiums.

To stabilize this new system, the law set up a complex system of funds, including one known as the Temporary Risk Corridors Program, that collect money from insurers and transfer it from companies with healthier, less expensive consumers to those with sicker, more costly consumers.

This system was supposed to pay for itself, as does a similar one used to shift money between drug plans in the Medicare Part D program.

But insurance industry officials have grown increasingly anxious about the new system’s adequacy.

Pressure is most acute on insurers in states where healthy consumers were allowed to remain in old plans that are not sold on the new online marketplaces, an option Obama offered to states amid a political firestorm over plan cancellations last year. The president had promised people would be able to stick with their plans.

The renewal temporarily solved a political problem for the White House, but created a new one. Maintaining these old plans kept many healthy consumers out of the marketplaces, making the pool of new customers less healthy and therefore potentially more expensive for insurers, according to experts.

In a series of White House meetings over the last several months, Obama and other senior administration officials have sought to persuade insurance company CEOs to nonetheless hold rates in check, arguing that the marketplaces would stabilize over time.

But with proposed 2015 rates beginning to come in, the administration acceded to industry demands for a clear guarantee that more money would be available to cover potential losses.

“In the unlikely event of a shortfall for the 2015 program year, HHS recognizes that the Affordable Care Act requires the secretary to make full payments to issuers,” the regulation published Friday notes. “In that event, HHS will use other sources of funding for the risk corridor payments, subject to the availability of appropriations.”

That language allows the administration to tap funds appropriated for other health programs to supplement payments to insurers, according to administration and industry officials.

Among congressional Republicans, the decision has raised concerns. “If the program costs more than it brings in, the secretary would be able to divert money intended for other programs,” Republicans on the Senate Budget Committee warned.

Whether the new regulations will be sufficient to control rates remains unclear.

America’s Health Insurance Plans, the industry’s Washington-based lobbying arm, welcomed the administration’s move, saying in a statement that the regulations “provide important clarity about how these insurer-financed programs will work as health plans prepare their rates for 2015.”

In a note to investors this week, J.P. Morgan also noted that the new rules “should improve stability of the exchange market.”

But some insurers continue to warn of bigger increases. Larry Levitt, an insurance expert at the nonprofit Kaiser Family Foundation, cautioned that some consumers may still be in for sticker shock.

“Premium hikes will likely be modest in much of the country,” he said. “But probably not everywhere.”

Hey Barack, it IS Iran Stupid…

Posted on by

As SecState, John Kerry continues to press Iran over the failed talks on the nuclear program, there is much more to be known that apparently the NSC at the White House has yet to learn via the media, which is how Barack Obama learns about every scandal.

John Kerry has relied heavily on the UK’s Catherine Ashton as the main voice of negotiations with Iran and now she is set to leave the post. This leaves the talks exclusively in the laps of Iran and Washington.

The other main ‘go-to’ point person working the Iranian nuclear program for John Kerry is Martin Indyk. He has a long history in foreign policy, more than John Kerry and yet, Indyk has never sided with Israel either, especially when it comes to the peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians. Remember it is Israel that is fighting so hard to exterminate the Iranian nuclear program as is Saudi Arabia. So, Indyk has been straddling both sides of the debate and talks all the way around. It was just recently that in a bar, with probably a few martinis under his belt, the truth comes out of Indyk’s mouth. For a full 30 minutes, Indyk was on a bashing Israel diatribe eliminating all fault of the Palestinians.

In the meantime, another memo was delivered to the U.S. and Barack Obama and John Kerry much less the NSC apparently dismissed it when it comes to Iran recruiting Afghan fighters with full salaries to join the jihad in Syria. This has sparked a full Parliament outrage and an investigation is underway with exactly what Iran’s mission is.

Not to be omitted, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps has gone full blown high tech and we cannot forget that U.S. drone that ended up in Iran’s possession.

‘The unveiling of an Iranian copy of the Lockheed Martin RQ-170 unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) overshadowed other, potentially more significant, revelations that emerged when Supreme Leader Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei visited the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) Aerospace Force on 11 May. An operational anti-radiation version of the Fateh-110 would in theory allow Iran to suppress the radars essential to the ballistic missile defence systems deployed in the Arab Gulf states.’

Iran HR violations

 

We also in summary cannot overlook what is really happening to Christians in the region.

“The growing number of Iranian Christians fleeing their homeland to come to Germany should alarm us that Iran’s regime is getting more and more radicalized and repressive – on a daily basis,” Saba Farzan, a German-Iranian expert on human rights, told FoxNews.com.

A telling example of Iran’s heavy-handed crackdown on Christians is the case of a 40-something Iranian woman named Afsaneh. A spiritual display brought down the full force of Tehran’s hard-line regime.

“I was so excited about Christmas that I put up a tree in my home and work,” Afsaneh told The Guardian.

However, she along with her cousin would pay a steep price for their embrace of the Christian faith in the Sharia-dominated Islamic Republic. Iranian authorities imprisoned both converts and imposed more than 70 lashes on Afsaneh and her cousin for merely practicing Christianity.

Remember through all of this neither Barack Obama or John Kerry have worked nor found success in releasing the American pastor held prisoner in Iran.

Iran, a state sponsor of terror continues terror, virtually unchecked by any country in the West. Next we could see Rouhani at Disneyworld.

FBI’s Comey Stunned about al Qaeda

Posted on by

So Barack Obama continues to say that al Qaeda leadership has been defeated and the Director of the FBI, James Comey agrees.

Well, we have countless al Qaeda factions all over the globe and they are more bold as we have seen with the kidnapping and killing of young children by Boko Harem in Nigeria. So it defies logic that Comey is stunned to determine that the garden variety attitude in the United States and with the few allies left that is al Qaeda has not been defeated.

Drone strikes abound in Yemen, Somalia and Pakistan dropping hellfire missiles on some high value targets yet, al Qaeda factions like al Nusra, al Shabaab and Boko Harem are still out there. Perhaps James Comey’s name is not on the memo distribution list.

 

WASHINGTON — When James B. Comey was nominated last June to be director of the F.B.I., it seemed to herald the beginning of a new era at the bureau.

His predecessor, Robert S. Mueller III, began the job just days before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, and Mr. Mueller’s years leading the F.B.I. had one overwhelming focus: fighting terrorism. Mr. Comey was appointed a month after President Obama delivered a sweeping speech on the future of the fight against terrorism and said the United States was at a “crossroads” and needed to move off its wartime footing.

As deputy attorney general in the George W. Bush administration, Mr. Comey had questioned the legality of a National Security Agency surveillance program regarded as a major component of the president’s counterterrorism strategy. And given Mr. Comey’s earlier experience in the Justice Department prosecuting gun cases, the F.B.I. seemed likely to shift resources into more traditional criminal prosecutions.

By Mr. Comey’s own account, he also brought to the job a belief, based on news media reports, that the threat from Al Qaeda was diminished. But nine months into his tenure as director, Mr. Comey acknowledges that he underestimated the threat the United States still faces from terrorism.

“I didn’t have anywhere near the appreciation I got after I came into this job just how virulent those affiliates had become,” Mr. Comey said, referring to offshoots of Al Qaeda in Africa and in the Middle East during an interview in his sprawling office on the seventh floor of the J. Edgar Hoover Building. “There are both many more than I appreciated, and they are stronger than I appreciated.”

Based on what he now knows, Mr. Comey said, he is convinced that terrorism should remain the main focus of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The agency he inherited from Mr. Mueller had roughly half its 16,000 agents and analysts working on national security issues, and Mr. Comey made it clear that he would not be changing those priorities.

In his speech at the National Defense University a year ago, Mr. Obama could also not have been clearer. He said that the United States was entering “a new phase,” and that “we have to recognize that the scale of the threat resembles the types of attacks we faced before 9/11.”

But for his administration, translating that vision has proved difficult. The National Security Agency has resisted demands that it change after its secret surveillance programs were disclosed in documents released by Edward J. Snowden, a former contractor. The C.I.A. has continued to operate a drone program that Mr. Obama said would be transferred to the Pentagon, and it is likely to face renewed criticism when a long-awaited report on its secret prison program is finally released.

Critics say that, at the F.B.I., Mr. Comey has chosen to continue a strategy that is no longer appropriate for the way the terrorist threat has evolved.

“The F.B.I.’s evolution since 9/11 into a domestic intelligence agency is troubling both from a civil liberties standpoint and its effectiveness,” said Mike German, a fellow at the Brennan Center for Justice’s Liberty and National Security program at New York University, “and in the face of evidence that it is ineffective, it’s troubling that Comey would embrace it.”

Mr. Comey’s defenders say he has simply accepted the reality that it still is a dangerous world.

“The problem is that as they have wanted to dial back, the threat has persisted in places like Syria, Yemen and East Africa,” said Rick Nelson, a former senior counterterrorism official with the F.B.I. “There’s still a legitimate threat and we can’t stop what we have been doing and change the model, and that has limited what Comey can do at the F.B.I.”

In briefings with senior administration officials, testimony before Congress and interviews with the news media, Mr. Comey has said that while the United States has “dramatically reduced” the “primary tumor” of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, “that threat has metastasized” in places like North Africa, Yemen and the United States.

The metaphor has personal meaning for Mr. Comey, who had a malignant tumor removed from his colon eight years ago and whose mother died of cancer. Just as the United States believed it had diminished Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, he said, doctors believed they had defeated his mother’s cancer.

For Mr. Comey and the F.B.I., the Boston Marathon bombings in April 2013 and the scrutiny that followed have illustrated the conundrum the bureau faces 12 and a half years after planes crashed into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

After the inspectors general who oversee the American intelligence and law enforcement agencies released a report on whether warning signs had been missed before the bombings, a diverse group of critics seized on its findings, but for different reasons.

Local officials and congressional Republicans criticized the F.B.I. as not having done enough, saying that it should have more closely investigated Tamerlan Tsarnaev, one of the bombing suspects, after he returned to the United States from a 2012 trip to Dagestan. Civil libertarians said that it was the latest example of how the F.B.I.’s traditional approach to terrorism — deploying large numbers of agents to gather information — had failed.

“What we learned in the Boston Marathon bombing is that it wasn’t that the F.B.I. didn’t have enough information — it was drowning in information,” said Carol Rose, the executive director of the Massachusetts A.C.L.U. “If the F.B.I. and the police had done investigative work like they should be doing, they would have looked more closely” at a triple murder in 2011 that the F.B.I. now says Mr. Tsarnaev was involved in, she said.

Critics like Ms. Rose said the bombings exposed a problem that existed before the Sept. 11 attacks: that the F.B.I. needs to better investigate the information it has, not simply collect more of it. They contend that the bureau’s buildup under Mr. Mueller did not solve the problem, but made it worse.

“You had all this information coming in, and nearly all of it wasn’t helpful,” said Mr. German, a former F.B.I. agent, “so agents became accustomed to leads going nowhere and everything they opened became an exercise in how quickly you can close it.”

In the case of the Boston bombing, Russian officials had previously told the F.B.I. that Mr. Tsarnaev had become radicalized and planned to travel to Russia to join underground groups. In their report last month, the inspectors general found that the agent who investigated that lead never questioned Mr. Tsarnaev or his family about his travels, and did not reopen an investigation of him after he returned to the United States.

“The year the F.B.I. investigated the older brother, it said it did 1,000 assessments,” Mr. German said. “There weren’t 1,000 terrorists in Boston that year, and a vast majority of resources were obviously going to things that didn’t matter.”

The F.B.I. has said that it did all it could, given the information it had from the Russian government and the legal restrictions on how it conducts its investigations.

But the bureau’s focus on counterterrorism has led to criticism that a generation of agents have spent their entire careers doing nothing else. Mr. German and other critics say they never learned the basic policing skills needed for a criminal investigation. Mr. Comey hasacknowledged the problem, ordering that the F.B.I.’s newest class of recruits, scheduled to start training in June, spend significant time on criminal investigation squads. And he has given his field offices more power to devote resources to helping local authorities.

He has also spent time studying the cybersecurity issue — which Mr. Mueller has said would be one of his most significant challenges —  in an effort to determine how the bureau can be more effective in policing it.

And Mr. Comey said he also wanted to apply the lessons learned in fighting terrorism to fighting other crimes. If Congress approves, he plans to move the bureau’s head of intelligence out of the national security division and create a new intelligence branch that will amass information on crimes like fraud in an effort to more quickly identify trends and perpetrators.

Using another metaphor — this time a football one — Mr. Comey said that he envisioned the F.B.I. as a free safety who has some primary responsibilities but is often called on to help other defenders on the field.

“We have certain assigned defensive responsibilities, those are the national securities ones, but beyond that I want to look to the line of scrimmage, which is the primary line of defense, which is state and local law enforcement and say, ‘O.K. where do you need us to make a tackle?’ ” Mr. Comey said. “ ‘Do you need us to stay deep, do you need us to cover over the middle, do you need us to come up and play run support?’ And that’s very different in each game with each opponent.”

If Mr. Comey has not changed Mr. Mueller’s policies, he has brought a distinctly different style to the bureau, devoting much of his time to raising morale, which had sagged because of Mr. Mueller’s demanding approach to management as well as budget cuts ordered by Congress.

While both had a background as federal prosecutors, Mr. Mueller was a prep school and Princeton graduate who wore a white shirt nearly every day as director and stipulated that agents keep their coats on at meetings. Mr. Comey, a less intimidating figure despite being 6-foot-8, struck a more casual note with a blue shirt on his first day as director and has gone out of his way to personally connect with his agents.

He has vowed to visit every one of the 56 field offices in his first year as director, and on a recent visit to the Buffalo office explained his theory that a more informal F.B.I. might be a more effective one.

“My first day everyone showed up and everyone was dressed up looking beautiful,” he said “And I said, ‘Listen, I don’t want people for their regular staff meetings with me wearing jackets because I worry that physical buttoning-up leads to a metaphysical buttoning-up.’ ”