Trump's Incomprehensible 'Cyber' Policy: 'Make Cyber Great Again'
from the let's-try-that-again dept
Last week, we wrote about Donald Trump's fairly astounding interview transcript with the Washington Post editorial board. In that post, we focused on his bizarre and nonsensical comments on defamation law, though there was lots of other nuttiness in the interview. Over the weekend, the NY Times published its own transcript of an interview between Donald Trump and two reporters, Maggie Haberman and David Sanger, focusing on foreign policy questions. Once again, reading it presents an incredible picture of a man running for President who doesn't know the most basic things about foreign policy (he literally seemed shocked and confused when the reporters pointed out that the US has sanctions against Iran, barring it from buying Boeing airplanes).But the issue that is relevant to folks around here is his completely confused and nonsensical responses to two things: cybersecurity and Ed Snowden. Let's start with cybersecurity. They first ask him if "cyberweapons" might present an "alternative" to nuclear weapons, which, with some background knowledge is an interesting question. Obviously, the US has used its power there using tools like Stuxnet to slowdown Iran's nuclear program, and possibly has done a lot more as well. Whether or not you agree with this approach, it's clearly a tool available to the US government these days. Trump doesn't even seem to understand the nature of the question, and just focuses on how dangerous nuclear weapons are... and his brilliant uncle at MIT telling him about how dangerous nukes are.
SANGER: You know, we have an alternative these days in a growing cyberarsenal. You’ve seen the growing cybercommand and so forth. Could you give us a vision of whether or not you think that the United States should regularly be using cyberweapons, perhaps, as an alternative to nuclear? And if so, how would you either threaten or employ those?So, after that Sanger tries again, noting that Trump didn't actually answer the question, which was actually about cybersecurity and cyberweapons, and Trump presents us with his patented form of word salad:
TRUMP: I don’t see it as an alternative to nuclear in terms of, in terms of ultimate power. Look, in the perfect world everybody would agree that nuclear would, you know, be so destructive, and this was always the theory, or was certainly the theory of many. That the power is so enormous that nobody would ever use them. But, as you know, we’re dealing with people in the world today that would use them, O.K.? Possibly numerous people that use them, and use them without hesitation if they had them. And there’s nothing, there’s nothing as, there’s nothing as meaningful or as powerful as that, and you know the problem is, and it used to be, and you would hear this, David, and I would hear it, and everybody would hear it, and — I’m not sure I believed it, ever. I talk sometimes about my uncle from M.I.T., and he would tell me many years ago when he was up at M.I.T. as a, he was a professor, he was a great guy in many respects, but a very brilliant guy, and he would tell me many years ago about the power of weapons someday, that the destructive force of these weapons would be so massive, that it’s going to be a scary world. And, you know, we have been under the impression that, well we’ve been, I think it’s misguided somewhat, I’ve always felt this but that nobody would ever use them because of the power. And the first one to use them, I think that would be a very bad thing. And I will tell you, I would very much not want to be the first one to use them, that I can say.
SANGER: The question was about cyber, how would you envision using cyberweapons? Cyberweapons in an attack to take out a power grid in a city, so forth.It seems pretty clear that Trump has no clue what is being discussed and just falls back into his usual talking points about how America just isn't that good any more, and then uses the tiny bit of information he does have (China and Russia have been in the news around hackings) and argues that they're better than us. But, "we're obsolete"? Huh? As noted above (not by him, of course), the most powerful computer-based attacks do seem to be coming from the US itself, not Russia or China.
TRUMP: First off, we’re so obsolete in cyber. We’re the ones that sort of were very much involved with the creation, but we’re so obsolete, we just seem to be toyed with by so many different countries, already. And we don’t know who’s doing what. We don’t know who’s got the power, who’s got that capability, some people say it’s China, some people say it’s Russia. But certainly cyber has to be a, you know, certainly cyber has to be in our thought process, very strongly in our thought process. Inconceivable that, inconceivable the power of cyber. But as you say, you can take out, you can take out, you can make countries nonfunctioning with a strong use of cyber. I don’t think we’re there. I don’t think we’re as advanced as other countries are, and I think you probably would agree with that. I don’t think we’re advanced, I think we’re going backwards in so many different ways. I think we’re going backwards with our military. I certainly don’t think we are, we move forward with cyber, but other countries are moving forward at a much more rapid pace. We are frankly not being led very well in terms of the protection of this country.
Also, what does "inconceivable that, inconceivable the power of cyber" even mean? All I can think of is the scene from The Princess Bride.
HABERMAN: Mr. Trump, just a quick follow-up on that question. As you know, we discovered in recent years that the U.S. spies extensively against its allies. That’s what came up with Edward Snowden and his data trove including Israel and Germany.Wait, Ed Snowden is the one who's caused us problems with trust? Not the fact that the US was spying on people it maybe shouldn't have been spying on? Talk about blaming the messenger.
TRUMP: Edward Snowden has caused us tremendous problems.
HABERMAN: But would you continue the programs that are in place now, or would you halt them, in terms of spying against our allies?
SANGER: Like Israel and Germany.
TRUMP: Right. They’re spying against us. Edward Snowden has caused us tremendous problems. Edward Snowden has been, you know, you have the two views on Snowden, obviously: You have, he’s wonderful, and you have he’s horrible. I’m in the horrible category. He’s caused us tremendous problems with trust, with everything about, you know, when they’re showing, Merkel’s cellphone has been spied on, and are – Now, they’re doing it to us, and other countries certainly are doing it to us, and but what I think what he did, I think it was a tremendous, a tremendous disservice to the United States. I think and I think it’s amazing that we can’t get him back.
There's then a follow-up about whether or not Trump agreed with President Obama's publicly stated agreement not to spy on Angela Merkel's phone (though it's now been said that everyone else in the German government remains fair game), and Trump goes back to word salad, and concludes with another dig at Snowden where, bizarrely, he seems to argue that other countries are spying on us because of Snowden. Huh?
SANGER: President Obama ordered an end to the spying, to the listening in on Angela Merkel’s cellphone, if that’s in fact what we were doing. Was that the right decision?Again, I know that all the other candidates are pretty horrible as well. But at least most of them can grasp basic concepts around the issues they're facing (even if they have terrible ideas about what to do about them). Trump doesn't even seem to understand the basics -- or even understand that he doesn't understand.
TRUMP: Well you see, I don’t know that, you know, when I talk about unpredictability, I’m not sure that we should be talking about me – On the assumption that I’m doing well, which I am, and that I may be in that position, I’m not sure that I would want to be talking about that. You understand what I mean by that, David. We’re so open, we’re so, “Oh I wouldn’t do this, I wouldn’t do that, I would do this, I would do that.” And it’s not so much with Merkel, but it’s certainly with other countries. You know, that really, where there’s, where there’s a different kind of relationship, and a much worse relationship than with Germany. So, you know there’s so, there’s such predictability with our country. We go and we send 50 soldiers over to the Middle East and President Obama gets up and announces that we’re sending 50 soldiers to the Middle East. Fifty very special soldiers. And they now have a target on their back, and everything we do, we announce, instead of winning, and announcing when it’s all over. There’s such, total predictability of this country, and it’s one of the reasons we do so poorly. You know, I’d rather not say that. I would like to see what they’re doing. Because you know, many countries, I can’t say Germany, but many countries are spying on us. I think that was a great disservice done by Edward Snowden. That I can tell you.
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: cybersecurity, cyberweapons, donald trump, ed snowden
Companies: ny times
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
His words in print
The level of gibberish and half-finished thoughts that emanate from that dude's mouth is staggering....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: His words in print
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: His words in print
I love this line of thought and enjoy trying to apply it to basically any other profession on Earth.
"How come our financial planner referred to our 'account thingy' rather than the Roth IRA we set up, and referred to our beneficiaries as 'money-getters'?"
"Well, dear, it's because he's not an actual professional wealth management professional and he's not trying to fool us with all of that slick financial language and whatnot. Let's just give him all the money, okay?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: His words in print
Trump, Hillary, Cruz, Bernie... when you get right down to it, there is just not much of a difference in the end.
You can take the Hillary/Bernie route and welcome all of the illegals in that are pretty much going to turn America into a 3rd world nation just like Europe is becoming right before our eyes.
-or-
You can take the Cruz/Trump route and maybe stave off the illegal immigration and instead get some Police State extras.
Both sides are disingenuous and the closest thing to representing the people seem to be either Bernie or Trump. Which sad because both have very Anti American problems with their politics, but you can't get the unwashed masses to see the truth.
Here we go again... voting for the lesser of two evils, picking your poison. Will it be the left foot or the right foot today?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: His words in print
Maybe the unwashed masses see the truth, but you have an extremely predjudiced mass media reshaping the truth and they're never going to admit to what they're up to. So everyone who's too tired to devote their life to researching the truth gets bamboozled. In the end though, its still us and them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: His words in print
If you watch these folks from washington, dc at their craft long enough, several decades at least, you'll see they are all in cahoots. If you take my word for it, it will save you a lot of time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: His words in print
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: His words in print
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: His words in print
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: His words in print
I refer you to the comments from Trump fans on the transcript of WaPo editorial board interview, like this one:
Or this one:
There's more, but I have enough of a headache already.
Nothing matters.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: His words in print
At this point the articles are an attempted "I told you so" for the historical record.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: His words in print
They believe that by over-simplifying complex issues that he is intelligent. Where in actuality, he's giving grade school-level answers to university-level problems. The number of legitimate "what if" scenarios not covered by his answers should scare everyone.
There's something to be said about problem solving by breaking down the problem into it's smallest parts, but that is NOT what he is doing. He's giving a sales pitch, full of bullshit, with half-realized thoughts about marginally-understood issues.
I guess you dumb down the public education system enough and this is the blowback.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: His words in print
Right now the republican primaries are becoming an everybody against Trump and that is part of his popularity, since people want someone to change the system and to go against the dogmas of the two-party system.
In terms of the presidential election, it is to be expected that Trump will have to fight a 1 on 1. In that setting, a man fighting the world will be much less likely to succeed if his opponent is good at addressing his attacks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: His words in print
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: His words in print
I think it's mostly county officials.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: His words in print
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: His words in print
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: His words in print -
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Trump's policy on $issue:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ 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: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: GW as a Rhodes scholar
Here it's just Trump's mouth directly connected to the random noise from space, the area between his ears, not the higher altitude version.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
No one can do that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fuck it; I'm writing in Dark Helmet for President!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Because at its core, socialism requires the use of government force for it to work and every application of government force reduces the liberty of the citizenry just that much more.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Seems to me that's true of law enforcement in general.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
As for reducing liberty, I would look at Isaiah Berlins positive and negative freedom definitions for some deeper thoughts on the issue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Think about it; the top tier elites LOVE unchecked immigration because it pushes wages down by forcing us to compete with each other over the jobs that are left after they've outsourced them.
Besides, there's no way you'd ever get full-blown socialism in America. The most you'd get is Vermont's system rolled out nationwide, if possible.
Of all the people who carp and whine about the parade of horribles that would surely ensue if Bernie got in, not one of them has ever been able to answer this question: "So how come Vermont is not the hellhole you think the rest of the country would be if he got in?"
They can't. Because capitalism and state-funded services feed into each other, creating a prosperous state. We actually need that because it doesn't pick winners or losers, it just fertilises the soil in which private enterprise can grow.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Many do not understand political systems in general, much less any one particular system. Most of what they "know" they have heard from various corporate media .. who have multiple conflicts of interest.
And add to that the fact that Bernie is not what we were all conditioned to fear back in the day.
Fun times!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I approve this message....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
At this time Cruz and Sanders are still in the race. Unfortunately neither are any better.
...Fuck it; I'm writing in Dark Helmet for President!!!...
A much better choice :)
Now if we could get the authorities to actually count write-in votes without the BS about write-ins having to meet all the other requirements before the election.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
1) A communist-lite version of Grandpa Simpson
2) A woman who's a hair's breadth away from an FBI indictment
3) An evil(er) grown-up version of Eddie Munster
4) An Cheeto-colored gold-plated dumpster fire
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
build a wall
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: build a wall
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: build a wall
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: build a wall
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: build a wall
"What we need here is a big, beautiful, multi-billion dollar firewall. Firewalls are big and beautiful, you know? I've met some and they're beautiful, those firewalls.
Hey, look at all the pretty people on this panel. Can we introduce each other? I don't think I've met some of you guys. You know, my wife is pretty, but not as pretty as Cruz's wife because she's not pretty, you know? And you want to elect someone with a pretty wife, you know? Not someone who's not pretty."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Also, it may have been irrelevant to the question at hand, but I for one am glad to hear Trump expressly say that he does not want to use our nukes. Yes, you'd think it need not be said, but as much as everyone paints him as a crazy person, considering he might end up the president, that statement of sanity is at least slightly comforting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
In a sense, not really. Which is part of the point. But his responses aren't just lacking polish, they're incoherent.
So you have to ask why? Is it because he's an arrogant, egotistical blowhard who truly has no concept of his ignorance, or is he cynically manipulating people who want to believe that's what he is?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I think he genuinely believes he did a great job in this NY interview and with the WaPo editorial board meeting.
It doesn't mean he's not also a con man who has cynically manipulated people (probably all his life). But because he's been so successful a conman, he's come to believe that he really does know everything he needs to know, about everything. And he won't let anyone near him who dares to tell him otherwise.
It's terrifying, and yes, it is different from so many other politicians. If we wondered before what would be worse than the non-answers we so often get from them... Here's worse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This is a potentially valid point, but I do think there's a difference. Normally, it seems fairly clear that most of those kinds of answers involve politicians who at least have *some* grasp of the issue at hand (though not necessarily a good grasp) and know that answering honestly would be political suicide. So they dance around it. It's not good, but at least I don't get the feeling that they're making decisions based on topics where they are wholly uninformed.
With Trump, it seems that he's unable to even recognize that he's uninformed.
To me, that's scarier.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I agree with Mike that there's no sign that he's aware he is uninformed, which if true would make it impossible for him to learn.
I just think he does not have the biases that other career Politicians do.
Perhaps, but do you like his biases better than theirs?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
My bet is that he is uninformed and he chooses to remain like it. That's even worse that someone that is informed and chooses to ignore it.
At least, at some point, there is a chance that he might stop ignoring it or even change his views. Someone who is ignorant, who knows it and who won't even bother learning it is more dangerous.
Oh, and 2 notes:
- Bought? He's already bought. Or rather, he doesn't need to be bought by your usual lobbies because he belongs to them. That doesn't mean that he won't be open for business, something tells me...
- That clown that is gonna entertain you by being your president has the power in his hands to fuck up your whole economy and life. Just saying. I'd take the position the due credit it has.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Scary Stuff
That brings new meaning to the views of some that the reason many of his supporters support him is because they want/expect him to blow up the system.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stop just stop
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Stop just stop
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The truly scary thing about Trump....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Trump sez
Got that right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Trump sez
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Trump sez
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Trump sez
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Writers and editors
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Writers and editors
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is why we can't have nice things....
Trump is what the last 6 years of Tea party games and GOP fear mongering has done to the masses. They set this up thinking one of their own controllable crazies would win, instead they got someone who can talk pretty to get those who were conned into thinking the whole world is our enemy to follow him.
I for see Trump outsourcing his cabinet to Mexico or China so that he can make America outsourcing great again.
/endrant
And yes, I am a Bernie supporter that does not live off the government but know what Socialism is and how it works.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This is why we can't have nice things....
"High chair" is the perfect term to use here, since Trump is basically a toddler.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Words fail me
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Words fail me
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
He said one true thing in that interview.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
besides, it may not long survive if he does...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
wow.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Maybe we should try that with other professions; "Hi, I'm Bob and I'm running for chief of surgery at the local hospital. I don't know a scalpel from a stethoscope, but if you elect me, I promise to cut all medical bills in half!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sanders is the only one with some tech understanding among them and he didn't get the encryption issue either, but he is still leagues ahead of these other numbskulls. These aren't candidates for the future or even for the present. This inevitable lack of even the most rudimentary tech knowledge, never mind the ability to handle complex issues, in the next president (unless Sanders actually wins) is just pathetic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Just saying.
And then Snowden is evil, hah.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You Know
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What about Stuxnet?
Unfortunately the smart guy(tm) doesn't know anything about Stuxnet so the US is behind on cyber.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What about Stuxnet?
It was really tremendous malware, really really great, you know, really very classy. Everybody says how great that malware is and we're really going to make malware great again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What about Stuxnet?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If you can make more sense out of Trump's interview than one of Bernie's, for example:
http://www.npr.org/2016/03/09/469848376/transcript-nprs-interview-with-bernie-sanders
then maybe that explains something about why Trump has so much support.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Exactly my point. What did you think I was trying to say?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Trumped
The take everyone is trying to play against Trump is he is a xenophobic racist. Unfortunately, you have all been talking about the working class for decades as if the left were doing anything for us.
They are NOT.
Border issues are about saying enough is enough to lip service to AMERICAN WORKING PEOPLE.
If you geniuses can't get it fixed and still engage in internationalism, we're going to take your internationalist toys away so that you can focus on issues here at home.
I am SICK TO DEATH of screaming liberal whining about Trump, and he is basically a Democrat who doesn't hate America as much as most Democrats do.
It's pathetic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Trumped
If that was a prepackaged response, then he needs to get better speech writers, because it was terrible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
God Bless America
This is so amazing to some of us who understand that these people have enjoyed usurping the authority of the government of the United States of America over the past 5 or 6 decades for reasons that are very possibly so nefarious, like the ushering in of the anti-christ or maybe at a more local level just to fill their coffers and not make waves or you end up in the East River or missing in some South American jungle, another story to be on the six o'clock news to be sure.
Regardless, they act on their media like we are all a bunch of morons who don't deserve the respect we are guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States of America for just being law abiding citizens of this great nation and moreover, demolishing the truth of what is really going on so their true nature and their secretive agendas can't possibly be revealed. It makes me chuckle eerily behind the sickening sense I have when I think about how GREAT this nation once was.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: God Bless America
There are many guarantees in the Constitution, but respect is not one of them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: God Bless America
[ link to this | view in chronology ]