Hillary Clinton Doubles Down Her Attack On Silicon Valley: Wants A 'Solution' For Encryption & Clampdown On Free Speech
from the that-seems-pretty-dumb dept
A few weeks ago, we pointed out that Hillary Clinton had, unfortunately, joined in with other clueless politicians to call for "Silicon Valley" to "develop solutions" to the "concerns of law enforcement and counterterrorism professionals" on "encryption." Anyone who's followed the "debate" over encryption over the past year knows that asking Silicon Valley to "develop solutions" is James Comey's codewords for "create a backdoor for encryption" -- no matter how many times experts in encryption have explained to him that such a solution makes everyone less safe. After we and a few others wrote about Clinton's unfortunate and dangerous decision to throw her lot in with those who wish to backdoor encryption, one of her main tech advisers, Alec Ross, went a little ballistic, insisting she did not say what she clearly did say.And, this weekend Clinton apparently decided to double down and then go even further -- even before President Obama suggested that he'd also support undermining encryption. First, on ABC's This Week, she repeated the argument that we just need "the best minds" to "come together" and "deal" with this issue.
STEPHANOPOULOS: How about Apple? No more encryption?But, again, that's like asking "the best minds" to come up with bullets that only kill bad people. Or books that only nice people are allowed to read. You're asking for an impossibility, and in doing so, you're making everyone less safe by undermining encryption -- which is the key to realistic computer security.
CLINTON: This is something I've said for a long time, George. I have to believe that the best minds in the private sector, in the public sector could come together to help us deal with this evolving threat. And you know, I know what the argument is from our friends in the industry. I respect that. Nobody wants to be feeling like their privacy is invaded.
But I also know what the argument is on the other side from law enforcement and security professionals. So, please, let's get together and try to figure out the best way forward.
Even worse, when Clinton claims that she knows "what the argument is from our friends in the industry" she gets their argument wrong. It's not just about invading privacy. It's about the fact that she's asking for the impossible. It's not just about protecting the privacy of people from intruding government. It's about not weakening overall systems that will allow those with bad intent to do lots of damage. It's a ridiculous statement and Clinton appears to be getting just as bad technology advice as basically every other presidential candidate.
And, that wasn't her only ridiculous anti-tech statement on the weekend. She also said that Facebook, YouTube and Twitter should censor bad content online to somehow stop ISIS.
STEPHANOPOULOS: If you were in the Oval Office tonight, would you be announcing a new strategy?I know that this view is one that many people agree with, but it's equally dangerous. First, it assumes that ISIS propaganda is apparently so powerful that no counter speech could possibly work against it, and thus it must be censored. But that's ridiculous on multiple levels. It overvalues the speech of ISIS and its supporters and the impact that it has (most studies have shown radicalization happens because of people individuals know in real life, not randos on the internet).
CLINTON: Well, I think what -- that's what we'll hear from the president, an intensification of the existing strategy and I think there's some additional steps we have to take.
If you look at the story about this woman and maybe the man, too, who got radicalized, self-radicalized, we're going to need help from Facebook and from YouTube and from Twitter. They cannot permit the recruitment and the actual direction of attacks or the celebration of violence by this sophisticated Internet user.
They're going to have to help us take down these announcements and these appeals they get up.
Really, though, exactly how are Facebook and Twitter and YouTube supposed to do this? How are they supposed to review every bit of content that everyone creates, and determine which bits are "good" and allowed and which are "bad" and not allowed? Clinton is asking for a fairy tale -- a world where (1) it's obvious what's good content and what's not and (2) one in which every bit of speech and communication is monitored and scored on such a non-existent scale. Both of these things are impossible. I don't know about you, but I prefer political candidates who focus on the possible, rather than fairy tales (I recognize this leaves me with basically almost no politicians to support, but occupational hazard, I guess...).
In a separate speech, given at the Brookings Institution, Clinton took this idea even further, calling on Silicon Valley to "disrupt ISIS," which is such a painful abuse of the term "disrupt" as to again raise questions about who is advising her on tech policy issues:
“We need to put the great disrupters at work at disrupting ISIS."Disruption in the tech world is about making things cheaper and better, and reinventing markets. It's not about magically stopping bad people from using technology. This is still fairy tale thinking.
But, more importantly, it encourages (or potentially threatens to mandate) that these content and communications platforms have to start proactively monitoring all speech online, and determining, on the fly, what speech is "good" and which speech is "bad." That's dangerous and will undoubtedly lead to much greater censorship -- including content that actually is useful in highlighting atrocities and dangerous activities online. We've seen this before. After US politicians pressured YouTube into removing "terrorist" videos, it resulted in videos being deleted from a Syrian watchdog group that was documenting atrocities.
Besides, these two separate issues seem totally contradictory. On the one hand, Clinton and other anti-encryption folks whine about not being able to see what terrorists are saying "because encryption." But then, at the same time, they're saying that when those same people talk about things publicly online -- in a way that's trackable -- we should shut them down.
It's almost like they have no strategy at all... except to try to throw the blame on technology companies.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: disruption, encryption, free speech, going dark, hillary clinton, isis, james comey
Companies: facebook, google, twitter, youtube
Reader Comments
The First Word
“Logic Fail
STEPHANOPOULOS: How about The Transitive Law? No more Logic?CLINTON: This is something I've said for a long time, George. I have to believe that the best minds in the private sector, in the public sector could come together to help us deal with this evolving threat. And you know, I know A = B and B = C. I respect that. Nobody wants B to not = C.
But I also know that if the best minds just work with us on this problem, we could make it so that A does not = C. So, please, let's get together and try to figure out the best way forward. I know Silicon Valley can make A <> C.
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
A lie by any other name...
Weaker security and less safety for everyone.
That is what they are arguing for, no matter how much they try and lie and pretend otherwise, and they deserve to be called out on it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A lie by any other name...
So, not only will consumers be left holding the bag, they'll be completely on their own.
Nothing could possibly be a bigger threat to future online commerce than that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: A lie by any other name...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: A lie by any other name...
The gov't can always coerce/bribe companies with this kind of immunity. "Hey, we won't pay you money, but we will remove risk from your calculations."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: A lie by any other name...
as far as I remember the NSA paid 10 millions to put its backdoor in the RSA encryption
so YES they can print and pay you millions for fscking your "clients"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: A lie by any other name...
But I stand by my point. Many people not trained in risk management would not immediately realize that "removing risk" is a real economic incentive, as good a payoff to a business as a literal bag of money.
The gov't can offer this "risk reduction" bribe without needing to allocate any budget, carve any checks, or send any suitcases of cash. It's "off balance sheet", and almost invisible to the voting public. The costs are socialized, but not a tax, so Grover Norquist won't bitch about it. It slips under the radar.
As such, it can be easily corrupted, as good as any slush fund and as honest as any Iran-Contra payoffs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Disturbing
So freedom of speech (presumably privacy and security, too) is a "complaint," not a right, and the Constitution is just an obstacle to be circumvented to her.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Disturbing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Disturbing
Also said as, just by invoking the 1st doesn't actually mean your complaint is valid.
Take many of the idiot commenters on Techdirt, whose comments are voted away, who complain about censorship and 1st Amendment rights. They are wrong on so many levels: Mike didn't censor them, the community did, this is not a gov't site so it is not a violation of free speech, and their speech is not removed, but voted into a low visibility state.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Disturbing
A complaint that Kim Jong-un is suppressing his people's speech in the DPRK is certainly not a valid 1st Aendment complaint! There just is NOT any 1st Amendment in North Korea.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Disturbing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Disturbing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Disturbing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Disturbing
Trump is just another Ross Perot spoiler.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Talk about hypocrite
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Talk about hypocrite
Of course, looking at the Republicans on the FCC board doesn't give you much hope there either.
I've got it! I've got the solution: Politicians are all morons.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Talk about hypocrite
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Talk about hypocrite
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Talk about hypocrite
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Talk about hypocrite
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
1. She's intentionally kept herself ignorant on the issue, and has not bothered to consult with anyone who knows enough on the matter to give her an informed statement on it.
or
2. She'd dishonest, knows she's asking for the impossible, and doesn't care.
Incompetent or lying, take your pick, because when it comes to politicians and police speaking about encryption and magic keys, at this point those are the only two options to describe them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
3. Behaviors of crowds. She is doing what nearly everyone else in her culture and environment (professional politics) does.
Of course they lie, or at least bullshit - I'm pretty sure they don't know half the time whether they are promoting untruths or not, like lots of people. The pols just have a stage where we can all see their act, and their actions have a lot more consequences than most peoples', given their power.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Obama is a great example of how they can TOTALLY BULLSHIT the whole campaign
just to do exactly the opposite AFTER election
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Democrats are all for free speech as long as you agree with them!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
you REALLY think there are two opposing parties?
don't you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: tech magic
-Arthur C. Clarke
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: tech magic
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: tech magic
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: tech magic
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I have the solution, lets put RIAA on the speech!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
good luck buying your next gaming rig with food stamps
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
good luck buying your next gaming rig with food stamps
Fuck the poor. Poor people are poor and rich people are rich because they deserve it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The leveling of society through the redistributive process means both A FLOOR AND A CEILING that specifies both the minimum that a person is to be guaranteed and the maximum that will be allowed through the taxing away of income
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-12-07/bernie-sanders-tyranny-working-living
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
so that they keep most of it to themselves and limit social mobility
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The democratic socialism practiced by Sanders, etc., doesn't redistribute wealth, it just makes the wealthy pay their fair share into a system they've been milking for their own benefit. As I've said any number of times, if half of the assertions you hysterical right-wingers make were actually true, Vermont would have a population sharply divided between the very rich and the very poor. That's not actually true, is it?
Now take a trip to Kansas and tell me why you think they've got their fiscal policy right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And has been going on for quite some time now. Funny how some people think it's OK for it to go in that direction but not the other.
I knew someone who was a rabidly against welfare or social assistance programs. When I say rabid, I mean he would get so worked up ranting against them that he would actually start foaming at the corners of his mouth.
Funny thing is, he spent his days watching Fox News and collecting welfare checks (disability, social security, medicare, food stamps, medicaid, etc.). When confronted with his hypocrisy he would retort that he deserved it because he was different than those "other" people on welfare because back when he worked he paid taxes! Like he was America's only taxpayer or something.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Anonymous Coward on Dec 7th, 2015 @ 8:30am
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It should be simple, concise and to the point without any possibility of reinterpretation.
Drill it into people's heads.
"What you are asking for is mathematically impossible."
Do it often enough and it will become second nature and further arguments will be shot down immediately as they're suggested.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What they're asking for is strychnine flavored ice cream, and they're refusing to acknowledge that's poisonous ice cream.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Do you really think that will work in a country where one state very nearly < href=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_Pi_Bill>legislated the value of pi to be 3.2??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
and soma
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Those in the Know, know, and those NOT in the Know, don't know, doncha know?
I think Clinton knows exactly what she is saying here. She wants a cheaper and better ISIS in order to have a platform, any platform, that will increase power for the Government (I was going to say the Executive, but that power is not mutually exclusive, it is all encompassing. Only, the little people are not allowed into the club).
It also appears that all those running for office not only become members of the club, but are required to be members, know the handshake and secret mumble. We know this because there is no apparent candidate who is calling bullshit on the rest of them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Those in the Know, know, and those NOT in the Know, don't know, doncha know?
if we replace "the internet" with twitter and facebook, we could just CGI and photoshop Isis and alikes
and that would be cheaper than sending trucks and weapons and the film crew to this horrible places...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Those in the Know, know, and those NOT in the Know, don't know, doncha know?
Compared to the budget for the U.S. army, they are doing a heck of an efficient job at keeping the world at edge. Granted, they don't need to run a propaganda or a recruitment department of their own because the U.S. government is doing those jobs for them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Those in the Know, know, and those NOT in the Know, don't know, doncha know?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Those in the Know, know, and those NOT in the Know, don't know, doncha know?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Those in the Know, know, and those NOT in the Know, don't know, doncha know?
and there are US techdirt readers trying to fool themselves into happiness by just IGNORING THE FACTS
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Idiocracy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Idiocracy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Idiocracy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Idiocracy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Idiocracy
or the prussian origins
there is nothing DECENT in government EDUCATION™ and of course there is no critical thinking either,
because that would be a suicidal government
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But I also know what the argument is on the other side from law enforcement and security professionals. So, please, let's get together and try to figure out the best way forward."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Red or blue, their interests align against you
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I just sent $100 to Bernie.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
and then he will send you $100 (in food stamps)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
you would be surprised at how forward thinking he is and the solutions he has for some of the biggest problems, and as with Trump he also is planning on single payer healthcare or something similar.
Sadly the President does not get everything he wants, just look at Obama with his single payer plan that had to be cut down to a mess because republicans wanted him to be a one term president and yes that is the only reason we do not have single payer right now , republicans wanted to ensure Obamacare failed, and in some ways it has sadly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
and you will get an idea of Bernie`s redistributionist idea
and how you will be flowery taxed
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://capitalismmagazine.com/2014/12/altruism-means-self-sacrifice-not-benevolence/
As a Christian I can't accept that. I won't accept that.
Now take a look at Kansas and let me know where Brownback succeeded. Oh, wait. He didn't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, she did, and so do I. She even wrote a book titled "The Virtue of Selfishness". Have you read the article you linked to? It explains why. Rand despised "the moochers" who used gov't power to enrich themselves. She didn't consider them capitalists. A lot of so-called capitalists (including Trump and the Tesla electric car guy) don't deserve to call themselves capitalists. They're about as capitalistic as the PRC or Soviet Union were Marxist communists, meaning in name only.
Christianity, like most other spirituality, is very altruistic. It's made religion (the business of capitalizing on spirituality) very profitable.
I, on the other hand, am a "teach a man to fish" kind of guy, so he'll be able to feed himself. Altruism teaches you to "give a man a fish" instead, so they'll be locked into dependence on others than themselves. I can't accept that. I think religion is evil, and spirituality is plain silly.
Rand saw nothing moral nor immoral about charity. You want to be charitable, everybody should have a hobby, have fun. When instead we *expect* people to be charitable, up to and including forcing them to by gov't decree (via redistribution via taxation & etc.), sure the hell is immoral. That's no better than Steppenwolf's "The Pusher" because dependence is dependence no matter what form it takes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Nobody's perfect, but there's nothing immoral about being selfish, especially when it's your stuff you're being selfish about. If you disagree, then how can you stand to own anything? Give it all away and beg for your supper like Hari Krishnas. Have fun. I won't be joining you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You actually still believe in hell? How about the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus, zombies, dragons, elves, ogres, and vampires? You really are a fool. Those are fairy tales invented to scare kids into eating their vegetables. They're not things which should concern adults. Grow up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You obviously don't. That explains a lot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
you DO LIKE your freedoms
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:Take responsibility for your actions
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:Take responsibility for your actions
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
it is not the 1%!
if you read latest Forbes 400 report it is the TOP 20.
YES twenty individuals.
http://www.ips-dc.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Billionaire-Bonanza-The-Forbes-400-and- the-Rest-of-Us-Dec1.pdf
Now if you think they do not own Bernie already...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It's working, isn't it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
To expect her to have a clear understanding of cyber security is absurd. /s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Not that she is AWARE OF - that is...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Legal Fantasy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fix the Liberal Media first
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fix the Liberal Media first
you read her thesis!
great
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fix the Liberal Media first
That said, you are otherwise right. The problem we have with the media is that terrorism is completely aligned with the business goals of news channels. Fear and terror make people turn on the news more, and stay tuned longer. Terrorism is great for Nielsen ratings.
This applies to domestic shooters, or political, or theocratic terrorists. It bleeds, it leads. Wash, rinse, repeat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Fix the Liberal Media first
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Fix the Liberal Media first
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Fix the Liberal Media first
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The emperor's new clothes (again)
What bad people would use such an encryption when pretty good encryption is already available which does not have a back door. I believe Snowden pointed out that Al Queda has their own in-house developed encryption technology which they are updating and upgrading on an ongoing basis. Not sure what ISIS is doing. But neither they, nor ordinary criminals, would use the government approved encryption.
Even if it wasn't mathematically impossible,. it is sociologically impossible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The emperor's new clothes (again)
you know this is BULLSHIT until you post the link!
SNOWDEN has never said that, or even anything remotely close to that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The emperor's new clothes (again)
Sorry, it's a day where I'm running on 2 hours of sleep, so I get sloppy. In any case, some days the distinction between what Snowden revealed and what Glen Greenwald said is a bit thin. Here are links to a Greenwald articles and interview and a quote from the interview -
A recent link would be: https://theintercept.com/2015/11/15/exploiting-emotions-about-paris-to-blame-snowden-distract-from-a ctual-culprits-who-empowered-isis/
http://www.democracynow.org/2014/8/13/glenn_greenwald_criticizes_n pr_for_relying
"GLENN GREENWALD: Yeah. Well, first of all, all this report said is that the Snowden reporting began in June of 2013, and then in September and December, al-Qaeda had different encryption programs. But the most basic logical premise teaches us that just because event A preceded event B doesn’t mean that event A caused event B. That isn’t evidence of causation. The reality is, is that you can go back to 2001 and find all kind of news stories every year describing the efforts of al-Qaeda to develop sophisticated and advanced forms of encryption. They’ve known forever that the U.S. government wants to electronically surveil their communications. They’ve been developing encryption for many, many years before the Snowden stories ever began. And in August of 2013, the U.S. government, the Obama administration went to the media, to McClatchy and to The Daily Beast, and they bragged about how they had intercepted a conference call between al-Qaeda leaders, in which al-Qaeda leaders were planning to attack U.S. embassies. And according to The New York Times, that leak, that came from the government..."
Bottom line, Al Queda wrote their own encryption software, updated it often, and it is reasonable to assume neither they, nor any other bad guy with half a brain, would use a US government approved encryption package.
If you have evidence to the contrary, post it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The emperor's new clothes (again)
SO SNOWDEN "pointed out that Al Queda has their own in-house developed encryption"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The emperor's new clothes (again)
The good people don't need a fscking warrant. A warrant requirement is a measure of mistrust, and there is no reason to mistrust the good people.
When the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution, they were still under the impression of bad actors making it into the English government. They could not foresee our modern times where the U.S. government has had recourse to so many trustworthy good people that the idea of oversight is just ridiculous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
y professionally trained community organizers
like Obama and Hillary
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As "if" she were a "viable candidate" otherwise. She's too busy defaulting to "lying piece of shit" to be a human being (let alone a viable candidate).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
laugh Loud
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The "asking for bullets that only hurt bad guys" or "knives that only spread jam" might work though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Instead of saying security professionals, she should have said "..from law enforcement and the folks we pay to 'defend the homeland', who look increasingly inept with each new day and and will be run out of town because they promised the impossible: to keep us all totally safe, warm, and fuzzy. But hey, look at how well they've done! We have no worries about weapons on planes... er.. bombings of public high profile events...er.. hang on, I'll think of something."
Security professionals worth their salaries know that this idea of secure-while-also-insecure encryption doesn't work, wouldn't fix the problem (encryption is obviously the only reason terrorists can accomplish anything) and don't want any part of it.
You want intelligence? GO FSCKING EARN IT.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Logic Fail
CLINTON: This is something I've said for a long time, George. I have to believe that the best minds in the private sector, in the public sector could come together to help us deal with this evolving threat. And you know, I know A = B and B = C. I respect that. Nobody wants B to not = C.
But I also know that if the best minds just work with us on this problem, we could make it so that A does not = C. So, please, let's get together and try to figure out the best way forward. I know Silicon Valley can make A <> C.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Logic Fail
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Logic Fail
a) rich Silicon Valley people problems
b) government problems
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Logic Fail
a) rich Silicon Valley people problems
b) government problems
Umm, they haven't solved the governments magic unicorn golden key problem yet, have they?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Logic Fail
- how to better "Quantify ourselves", and
- how to hail a cab more efficiently.
Figure the rest out yourselves.
Signed,
The Valley.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
.gov wants to know how and where you spend your money, what allergies it can use to accidentally kill you and what books you are buying online
so banks, health and online retailers cannot use encryption either
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Encryption
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Encryption
Actually, it's true. It's criminals the ones who make the most use of encryption.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
George Steponallofus is in the tank for Hillary
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There isn't even an argument here...
I am assuming here, that there should be some tech smart people that have worked on this problem for quite a while... What have they come up with?
I find one thing in common in these arguments to "find a solution to encryption": There is nothing there! Nobody even has a slight hint of a plan or a way to do this.
In programming there are 5 steps, each with several mini-steps.
Step 1 is: Clarify Programming Needs.
Mini-step 1 is: Carify Objective and Users.
They fail the very first part of the first step! Nobody carifies the objective or the users in other than very vague terms that all hint at "the good guys".
There isn't even a hint of an outline of anything that resemples a plan. I will bet anyone that they have spent 10's or 100's of millions in research already with absolutely nothing to show.
It is digraceful that they are still in office when they act like that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Reality Bytes
These nitwits think unicorns are real.
They will be the end of us all.
Mass surveillance of a nations citizens by their "own" government is totalitarianism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just Wow
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just Wow
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Silver bullit
- Encryption doesn't kill people, people kill people!
- If encryption is against the law, only criminals have encryption!
I understand this works well with other constitutional issues.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]