Jeb Bush Comes Out Against Encryption 495
An anonymous reader writes: Presidential candidate Jeb Bush has called on tech companies to form a more "cooperative" arrangement with intelligence agencies. During a speech in South Carolina, Bush made clear his opinion on encryption: "If you create encryption, it makes it harder for the American government to do its job — while protecting civil liberties — to make sure that evildoers aren't in our midst." He also indicated he felt the recent scaling back of the Patriot Act went too far. Bush says he hasn't seen any indication the bulk collection of phone metadata violated anyone's civil liberties.
buh, bye (Score:5, Insightful)
Jeb was already on his way to irrelevant, just another nail in his political coffin.
Re:buh, bye (Score:5, Funny)
Jeb is gonna want some kind of a cabinet position in the Trump administration, so he better start catching up on past episodes of The Apprentice.
Re: (Score:3)
Jeb is gonna want some kind of a cabinet position in the Trump administration, so he better start catching up on past episodes of The Apprentice.
We could do worse than Trump... But.... We could do a LOT better too. I sure hope Trump get's tired of spending his money on this side show pretty soon...
Jeb unveils plan do destroy US tech economy (Score:5, Funny)
Bye Bye Jeb... (Score:3)
He seemed ok on some other things, a bit more moderate on many issues, but this...geez, taking sides against the citizens' rights to privacy, that's a deal killer instantly.
Even Obama's not argued for that one...
Maximum damage (Score:5, Informative)
We could do worse than Trump... But.... We could do a LOT better too. I sure hope Trump get's tired of spending his money on this side show pretty soon...
The summary nature of voting on legislature (yea, nay, abstain) puts an upper bound on the amount of damage a bad congressman can do.
Essentially, there are a finite number of times any congressman can vote on an issue. If they vote against the interests of the people every time, they've reached maximum damage.
The same can be said of presidents (pass, veto, pocket-veto, &c.).
Few issues are black-and-white: most laws are some percent good for the people and some percent bad. The two issues I can find that are closest to 100% bad for the people are H1B Visas and the Patriot and USA Freedom acts.
H1B visas take jobs away from Americans and allow corporations to impose misery on the imported workers, and the Patriot act and related violates our rights and makes us less safe (by diverting resources away from effective strategies like intelligence gathering).
The relevant votes are shown below. The government doesn't care about our rights, and it doesn't care whether we have jobs. It has reached maximum damage.
Trump might be the worst president we've ever had, but at this point in time, he's not *guaranteed* to be the worst.
USA Freedom Act (Senate)
YEAs: 67 (D = 43, R = 23, I = 1)
NAYs: 32 (D = 1, R = 30, I = 1)
Not voting: 1 (R)
USA Freedom Act (House)
https://www.govtrack.us/congre... [govtrack.us]
YEAs: 67 (D = 124, R = 179, I = 1)
NAYs: 32 (D = 70, R = 51, I = 1)
Not voting: 2 (R) 5(D)
Increase H1B Visas (Senate)
https://www.govtrack.us/congre... [govtrack.us]
YEAs: 67 (D = 52, R = 14, I = 2)
NAYs: 32 (D = 0, R = 32, I = 0)
Re:Maximum damage (Score:4, Interesting)
Apparently, you don't realize that congresspeople can manipulate the laws they're voting on by rewriting them.
That's a bit more than just a yea/nay/dunno.
Re:buh, bye (Score:4, Interesting)
no one would believe you if you went back in time and said that reagan and bush-2 would be president.
"an actor? president? you're making that up!"
(what movie was that from? doesn't matter.)
point is, with the true choice of leaders NOT being in the hands of the voters, anything's possible. if the hidden unseen rulers choose idiot-A or idiot-B, that's what we get. what: you thought we had a SAY in things? oh, how cute.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
'm curious, what probability do you estimate that Trump will be the next US President?
As far as Trump actually becoming President, it depends greatly on what happens on the Dem side.
Trump winning GOP nomination is actually quite plausible, I'd put the odds at 60%.
Trump vs. a greatly weakened and scandal plagued Hillary has a good chance to win the Presidency. I would give it 70%. So in this scenario, 60% * 70% = 42% chance of a Trump White House.
If Hillary is arrested or forced out and it's Socialist Sanders vs. Trump, I'd put it at 50/50. That would make it 30% overall for Trump.
Vs. Biden i
Re:buh, bye (Score:4, Insightful)
Trump is the Democrat's stealth MVP. The goal here is to disrupt the Republicans from within and capture the government completely.
Re:buh, bye (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:buh, bye (Score:4, Insightful)
How long has it been that the Republicans have been holding primaries with something approaching two dozen candidates? It seems like a relatively recent phenomenon, like in the last three elections or so.
I think you can largely attribute that phenomenon to the Citizens United ruling, which effectively allowed billionaires to give as much money to a campaign as they feel like giving. Before that, most candidates had to raise money from many sources, and therefore only the candidates who were widely seen as viable and acceptable could afford to stay in the race. Post-Citizens, any candidate with his own billionaire sugar daddy can now run and keep running for as long as the sugar daddy continues to pay the bills, regardless of what the party would prefer. Hence the large number of candidates.
My prediction is that in another election or three, the novelty of buying your own personal Presidential candidate will wear off, and not so many sugar daddies will be interested in throwing their money away on unlikely campaigns. So the number of candidates will probably go back down again.
Re: (Score:3)
Jeb was already on his way to irrelevant, just another nail in his political coffin.
We are about 5 months away from any "voting" taking place. That's a LONG time politically, where the public's attention span has a hard time lasting more than 2 weeks on anything. Jeb's got money so I'd not count him out. He's just biding time, as are a whole host of other candidates, sitting on their war chests and getting their ad buys ready for Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada.
Right now it's all about getting enough money to make a good showing late in January and making it though the
Re: (Score:3)
The other reality and I am not sure even Jeb! gets it is that Trump is the best thing that could have happened to him at least as far as the primaries go.
The whole "anchor baby" conversation the other day with him getting testy isn't good. What Jeb! needs to do if he wants to win is stay the hell out of the spot light. Let Trump continue to suck up all the oxygen.
Trump will flame out sooner or later, he has too. Trump is smart guy but the rules of the game are different in politics there is only one Trum
Re: (Score:3)
You are not seriously comparing Trump to Obama, are you?
Indeed. Obama was just another puppet of Big Business. Trump is Big Business.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
The right wing is severely splintered. There's the establishment side and there's the libertarian side. To see this in full effect, head over to ar15.com and read the General Discussion section.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The right wing is severely splintered. There's the establishment side and there's the libertarian side.
Not really. The only "libertarian" candidate is Rand Paul, and he is polling around 4%. His dad peaked at 10% eight years ago, so support for the authoritarians has actually gone up.
Re: buh, bye (Score:5, Informative)
The only "libertarian" candidate is Rand Paul
http://time.com/3759378/rand-paul-defense-spending/
His amendment would add $76.5 billion to the defense budget
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/03/09/3381381/rand-paul-gas-exports/
"I would immediately get every obstacle out of the way for our export of oil and gas, and I would begin drilling in every possible conceivable place within our territories in order to have production we can supply Europe with if it’s interrupted from Ukraine."
Here is a "libertarian" suggesting government involvement in the market on a scale never before attempted. He's the exact opposite of a "libertarian"
Re: buh, bye (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, I figure that those are very good reasons that ShanghaiBill put scare quotes around "libertarian".
IE he's the most libertarian of the bunch, doesn't mean that he's actually one of us.
Then again - Defense budget: It says right in the article that he's doing it as a compromise/appeasement to the 'war hawks'. He balances that with other cuts that we'd generally approve of (though I'd drastically reform the EPA, not cripple it via fund cutting).
On Gas exports - REMOVING government obstacles against businesses is libertarian. Note that he didn't say 'subsidize' gas exports. So REMOVING the need for permits and such would be ' government involvement in the market on a scale never before attempted'?
Remember, speeches are limited, it's very difficult to shove every shade of meaning into them.
Re: buh, bye (Score:3)
BREAKING NEWS: people are different.
The left is "splintered" too. Take a look at Bernie Sanders in the polls. Or people trying to recruit Warren, Biden, Gore, etc.
This is not something about "the right". The party system is artificial and people do not fall into two or three buckets.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't know - but I do know that that is a SINGLE ISSUE in the vast array of topics being discussed in this election. The left is simply splintered on different issues.
how many people on the left (Score:5, Interesting)
how many people on the left are calling for increased government surveillance?
Well, lets see. The top "man" on the left is certainly doing it. And he really got pissed when the patriot Snowden revealed what his administration was doing. And his party seems to be behind him (in both this and the destruction of American ideals in plenty of other ways). So all in all I would say most of them.
Re:how many people on the left (Score:5, Insightful)
you fell for the trick-question.
there isn't a single serious politician in the US who is leftist. that died well over 20 years ago, perhaps even 30+.
we have ultra right and middle right. that's about it.
Re: (Score:3)
That's not really possible when you consider that left and right are political spectrum.
Also, we are talking American politics not European.
Re: buh, bye (Score:4, Informative)
Hmm...let's see...Obama, Feinstein, Napolitano, Holder...a lot of them, actually.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
how many people on the left are calling for increased government surveillance?
Clinton was in the White House the last time the US government tried to eliminate encryption.
Besides, the left love government surveillance, so long as they're in charge. Look at... any communist society in the 20th century.
Re: buh, bye (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, they weren't trying to eliminate encryption - just limit its strength. Yes, they were trying to implement restrictions as per the ITAR on strong encryption. They were up in arms over PGP being outside of their control. They were trying to force the Clipper encryption chip and Skipjack down our throats. And, Gore was the guy who was pushing these things for the administration with the urging of the 3 letter acronym organization.
Encryption, in the US, would have remained. Clipper, embedded into everything would have allowed law enforcement to decrypt communications using, supposedly, a warrant to obtain the "Law Enforcement Access Field (LEAF)" that would then have allowed the recovery of the encryption key. It probably should have been called the "Law Enforcement Access Key" (wait..that spells LEAK...can't have that). A vulnerability was discovered that enabled a hacker to encrypt communications while bypassing the generation of the LEAF key. That derailed the entire project and Clipper died in 1996.
Yes, I still have my "Sink Clipper" tee shirt from the RSA Data Security conference from back when they were actually trusted.
Re: (Score:3)
The right wing is severely splintered. There's the establishment side and there's the libertarian side.
In all fairness, so is the left. There's the establishment side (Hillary) and "other" (Sanders).
Re: buh, bye (Score:5, Insightful)
They still exist? I was under the impression all that's left from the Republicans I once knew is the religious nutjobs, the neocon assholes and the redneck hicks who vote for anyone that lets them keep their rocket launchers.
I really miss my Reps. I really do. It used to be such a great party. Now it's just a hodgepodge of lunatics and assholes.
Re: (Score:3)
As a Democrat who's more liberal than nearly all the running Democratic candidates, I could see myself being content to let the country be run by most of the Republican presidential candidates or elects from about Eisenhower up until and not including Dubya. Eisenhower is my favorite Republican of all time; Nixon did a few things right and many things wrong; we could've done a lot worse than George H. W. Bush; Reagan was okay because most of his crazier ideas didn't get implemented, and the ones that did we
Re: buh, bye (Score:5, Insightful)
I love how by your admission the extreme right are the people who are clearly trying to make the world a worse place, and the extreme left are the ones who are trying, perhaps too hard, to make the world a better place.
That was before the tea party (Score:5, Insightful)
The Republican party is never going back to being sane, the threat of being primaried is worse than that of killing their constituents. They will prefer to refuse Medicaid, lower taxes on the rich till the government looks like Greece and starve Medicare etc.
The Democrats move back to the right after being elected. The Republicans scream and shift blame and deadlock but they won't ever be able to govern responsibly ever again.
Re:That was before the tea party (Score:4, Interesting)
Sorry, but it is socialism that caused Greece to fail, not capitalism. They have , as Thacher once opined, finally "run out of other people's money". And if you look around, the stench of failure around socialistic economies is growing. AND YET people like you seem to think it is all "republican's fault"
Sorry, but the (R) and (D) parties are just taking turns slowly moving us to the failed socialism, just slower or faster depending on party.
It is interesting that you think that failures like Greece aren't because of runaway socialism. Maybe, you think "with a little tweaking, it might work next time"
Re: buh, bye (Score:5, Insightful)
The only "Scotsmen" here are in DC (or their lobbyists are) - the big money donors and the politicians they own.
There's a huge gap right now between the conservative base and GOP politicians in DC. Trump get his entertaining time in the spotlight purely because of his anger: the conservative base is really angry with the GOP establishment right now, to the point where they don't even care that Trump is not conservative! He's angry, and that emotional connection is enough for now.
Jeb is the establishment candidate. I've never seen him praised in the comments of any of the conservative blogs I read. He's seen as a horrifying combination of RINO and "could even lose to Hillary". But he has all the money, as he has the love of the exact people the base is angry with.
My strongest hope in the primaries is that we get no candidates names "Bush" or "Clinton". Enough with the legacies already! Bernie seems honest (for all I think he's a fool), I like Walker, Carson seems unobjectionable. Lets have an election where there's a difference between the candidates, for once!
Re: buh, bye (Score:4, Insightful)
Democrat in the heart of democrat territory (San Francisco) here. And the only "support" for Hillary that I've heard expressed by anyone I know has essentially been: "I'm voting for Bernie in the primary. But if he doesn't get the nomination, I'll vote for Hillary in the general. Better her than any of the republicans.". That pretty much sums up my own plans too.
Re: (Score:3)
I think it has more to do with how you phrase it to people.
I'm pretty sure that anyone sweating over the Ashley Madison leak is now in favour of encryption.
Encryption - because sometimes even "good" people don't want EVERYONE reading what they're doing.
Re:buh, bye (Score:5, Insightful)
Primaries have become a curse upon the nation. The people most likely to vote in them are the extremists, who then dump extreme-leaning candidates on the general election who then have to scramble to appear centrist since the country as a whole has a significant gap between Left and Right, regardless of how far Right the Left is considered by Europeans.
So we have primary winners who are at best panderers to our worse natures and at worst aligned with them, whose credibility is suspect - they either have to "flip flop" or they're seen as unwilling to accommodate the other side. Anyone halfway sane or centrist cannot make it to the general election where they're needed most.
Re: (Score:3)
This.
Hillary has a huge advantage, so far, because there is no mudslinging primary going on for her.
The GOP is a fucking circus and after the the lead clown evaporates, the remainders are not very exciting to listen to.
Hillary appeals to LGBTQ, immigrants, poor, middle class, etc.
She does have baggage and the GOP has leveraged that too soon. As one poster pointed out, the attention span of the public is about two weeks. If she can get past the emails, she's a shoe-in.
She testifies in October about Benghazi,
Re: (Score:3)
Personal wealth is much less important than the Bush family political machine. Jeb will have the same superPACs thaw W had. He'll also have Darth Cheney, Karl Rove, all of Fox news, and the Koch brothers backing him up when the time comes. Compared to that, Trump's personal fortune is chump change and his campaign theatrics are just bread and circuses.
Re: (Score:3)
We hear this all the time, but after all is said and done, the democrats have always have and spend more money than republicans during elections/
He is not a Republican (Score:5, Informative)
I wouldn't piss on him if he was on fire...
Re:He is not a Republican (Score:4, Insightful)
Can you please define what you would consider as a "Republican":
if you call yourself a republican, you're a republican
if you are a registered republican, you're a republican
it's not like a birthright or a club, it's just a box you check on a form
Re:He is not a Republican (Score:5, Interesting)
To put "the republicans" more in line with what every other country in the world calls that party: they are conservative. Conservatives, free from corruption, are for small government. They prioritize tradition over progressive ideas, saving over spending, and the free market over social bureaucracy.
The world needs more conservatism. The problem is that a proclivity towards private enterprise makes them easy targets for corruption. This is precisely why we need to keep the government's impact and their ability to monetize self interest as small as possible. The US (and others) political system has done a terrible job of this so far. A good start would be to remove corporate contributions to political campaigns.
Re: (Score:3)
The names of the parties are irrelevant. They were invented over a hundred years ago but the parties themselves change their faces every decade.
The first major parties were the Federalist Party and the Democrat-Republican Party.
In reality there have been only a few major political splits. Federalist vs Anti-Federalist, which could roughly be defined as strong central government, fiscally at least, versus reduced federal power and a looser coalition of states. There was another divide, the slave states ve
Privacy is a civil liberty, Jeb (Score:5, Interesting)
That sounds like a threat... "If you make encryption, we won't bother with protecting civil liberties any more."
Re: (Score:3)
I think we should establish privacy as a Constitutionally protected right under the 9th Amendment.
Re: (Score:3)
You're fighting the wrong battle. Adding amendments isn't going to help, the government doesn't obey the ones that we already have.
Re: (Score:3)
You're fighting the wrong battle. Adding amendments isn't going to help, the government doesn't obey the ones that we already have.
How true... We are ignoring a number of "inconvenient" amendments now..
Re: (Score:3)
I think we should establish privacy as a Constitutionally protected right under the 9th Amendment.
it would an awful lot easier if the supreme court declared that your "effects" include your personal data, in which case we already have an amendment for that.
Re: (Score:3)
OMG don't they teach ANYTHING in school nowadays? Sheesh.
"Amendment IV" to the United States Constitution (the document that establishes our government):
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
The flaw in the 4th is the word "unreasonable" as anything can be argued as reasonable so searching everything to stop "evil" is reasonable to many.
Re:Privacy is a civil liberty, Jeb (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
No, civil liberties are like mint in box collectibles. Only when the federal government puts your civil liberties securely away in a place where you can't use them can it truly protect them!
in other words (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't want to get elected but am doing this because they are making me
Such a time savings (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forget the cost savings too! No more need for ssl certs, developing secure infrastructure, DRM...
He lost my vote (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:He lost my vote (Score:5, Insightful)
I would vote for Don before Jeb for a lot of reasons. In fact, of the current Republican slate, I'd pretty much vote for Trump over all of them, because I consider him "mostly harmless" by comparison. I'd like to say I prefer Rand, but Rand has that whole "religiot" angle going that I just can't tolerate.
Sadly enough, as a fiscal conservative (and social liberal), I'd actually call Sanders my candidate of choice so far. Yep - The self-proclaimed socialist shows more fiscal responsibility than all 38 GOPpers [slashdot.org] running.
And they wonder why people don't show more interest in our elections...
Re: (Score:3)
That phrase, "mostly harmless" rings a bell [wikiquote.org].
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Sanders and most other serious socialists are more fiscally responsible than the average Republican because they actually care about the condition that the government is in after they're through with it.
Re:He lost my vote (Score:5, Insightful)
Considering the growth we had during the late 40's and 50's, that 90% top marginal tax rate certainly didn't hurt then, and in fact, helped to pay down a lot of debt we had from WWII.
What is fiscally irresponsible is bottoming out taxes while exploding the national debt, like Reagan and Bush II did. People like to bring up the whole "balanced budget" thing on occasion, and in a sense i agree with it... but those people that do are being disingenuous at best. We could balance the budget in two years with a simple constitutional amendment that says "we WILL bring in the revenue to pay for ALL of governments expenses, or the rates will automatically be adjusted to do that. Period, no exceptions." The problem we have is a whole generation who are selfish, greedy, anti-American piss-ants who prefer to act like petulant children instead of living up to the social contract of continuing to invest in future generations, and those people have been leeching everything ever generation before them invested since the 1980's.
Then again, by the way you wrote that... leaving out the "top marginal rate" part... i have to assume you either do not understand history, or what Sanders said.... or that you're just being deceptive to get people to agree with you.
Re:He lost my vote (Score:5, Insightful)
First of all, you need to learn the difference between marginal and average tax rates.
Second - Yes. Not spending more than you make counts as rule #1 of fiscal responsibility. I disapprove of the vast majority of government spending and would far prefer we balance the budget through cuts; but as long as neither the Republicans nor the Democrats can refrain from writing rubber checks, we'd damned well better back them with something other than green ink.
That said - We last saw a top marginal rate of 91% from 1946 through 1963. Y'know, the post-WWII era, the "baby boom", one of the most prosperous eras in US history for the lower and middle classes? I don't normally go for rose-tinted glasses, but tough to see much but pink about that (unless you can't see anything through all the green).
Hmmm. Ok, you go first.
As soon as I make over $1,766,000 per year (the inflation adjusted 90% bracket floor in 1946), yes, I will gladly pay 90% of anything over that.
Re: (Score:3)
As soon as I make over $1,766,000 per year (the inflation adjusted 90% bracket floor in 1946), yes, I will gladly pay 90% of anything over that.
Not to forget that we're talking about personal income here - wages and such. If you're making more than $1.7 million, you're almost certainly getting most of it from capital gains instead, and those were taxed at what, flat 25% then; and 20% at most now?
How do people not understand (Score:5, Interesting)
It's a serious invasion of privacy.
Is there a candidate who understands this?
Re: (Score:3)
Bruce Scheier said it best:
Metadata Equals Surveillance
https://www.schneier.com/blog/... [schneier.com]
One More Reason (Score:5, Interesting)
Besides being an asshat in general, this is one more reason not to vote for him.
Which other candidates share this view?
Cut from the same cloth (Score:2)
Which other candidates share this view?
Once they get into office it seems like most of them... They want whatever makes their life easiest and your civil rights can be damned.
Re: (Score:3)
Which other candidates share this view?
All of them. That's the problem. Jeb was just stupid enough to say it out loud.
Re:One More Reason (Score:5, Informative)
“As someone who voted against the Patriot Act and opposed its reauthorization, I have long been concerned about out-of-control intelligence agencies.
“At a time when the American people are outraged by government attacks on our constitutional rights, the president’s proposal is a step forward. We must, however, go further. Ending the bulk collection of phone records of virtually all Americans – 99.999 percent of whom have nothing to do with terrorism – is important. The president should end that program now, not 90 days from now. We also must also make sure that the government isn’t harvesting records on our emails and other Internet activity except in instances where there are specific reasons to suspect wrongdoing.
“Our intelligence and law enforcement agencies must be given the tools they need to protect us, but that can be done in a way that does not sacrifice our constitutional rights. If we allow the government to see all of what we read, what we watch and what we hear, then we cannot be called a free society.”
http://www.sanders.senate.gov/... [senate.gov]
Jeb steps in it again (Score:5, Interesting)
It seems like every time this guy opens his mouth he makes another mistake. Trump is right about one thing - Bush is a low energy candidate. This guy looks like he has been dragged kicking and screaming into this campaign. He has little interest and fewer ideas. Anyone that is against encryption and in favor of expanding the Patriot Act won't get my vote. Time to hang it up Jeb.
Fuck you Jeb! (Score:2)
Well this is historic. For once, a presidential campaign has a candidate specifically for identity thieves and credit card fraudsters.
Sure, who's not against encryption? (Score:2)
.
Ashley Madison poll (Score:4, Insightful)
Ask those folks in Ashley Madison dump how they feel about encryption
I appreciate his honesty (Score:5, Interesting)
As a Republican, his views on encryption and the Patriot Act are not reconciliable with mine. I can scratch him off the ridiculously long list.
What that said, it's pretty hard to get any politician not named Donald to truly speak his mind. Thanks, Gov...
Re:I appreciate his honesty (Score:5, Insightful)
What that said, it's pretty hard to get any politician not named Donald to truly speak his mind. Thanks, Gov...
You think Trump is speaking his mind? He's not. He's telling people exactly what they want to hear and they are eating it up. He is tapping into the frustration against the establishment. He tried it with the birther movement the last time but that "controversy" was so ridiculous and contrived that there was no way he could ride it. But now he's found something with much broader appeal.
"Evildoer"? Seriously? (Score:4, Insightful)
"If you create encryption, it makes it harder for the American government to do its job — while protecting civil liberties — to make sure that evildoers aren't in our midst."
I will never vote for someone who uses the word "evildoer". The last guy to use it in office didn't work out so well...
And I don't give a shit that it is hard(er) for the US government to step on my throat. We have restrictions on the government because the government has proven time and again that it cannot be entirely trusted. If they have to work a little harder I don't care at all. The Bad Guys aren't going to use weak encryption (unless they are stupid) and there is no reasonable argument that can be made that I shouldn't have access to it either. Bad encryption is effectively the same as no encryption and no encryption is unacceptable when using modern technology.
He also indicated he felt the recent scaling back of the Patriot Act went too far. Bush says he hasn't seen any indication the bulk collection of phone metadata violated anyone's civil liberties.
Then he is just as much of an imbecile as his brother. Jeb clearly has the same moral deficits as George. Trump may be a clown but apparently Jeb is much more dangerous.
I postulate the following hypothesis (Score:4, Funny)
X \in Candidate and X \in Republican => isNuts(X) = true
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I propose the slightly stronger statement:
X \in Politician => isNuts(X) = true
Well, now I'm confused (Score:3)
So are Clinton & Obama evil or not?
And what about the big, bad government?
Ah, to hell with all these posers, the most deserving is the guy who's been consistent all along anyway.
SANDERS 2016!!
And another clueless one (Score:2)
Why can politicians not shut up about things they do not understand? Obsessive-compulsion disorder?
Bad timing ... (Score:5, Funny)
Bush, shut your pie hole if you don't know shit (Score:3)
Sorry, but there is no polite way to say it. Shut the fuck up if you don't have the foggiest clue what you're talking about.
Lowering the encryption standard not only would make it easier for law enforcement to break the encryption of bad guys, it would also make it easier for bad guys to break into the secrets that do actually ensure your national security. And no, making some security services and three letter goons exempt from it won't change shit. There are still companies, government agencies and other entities that have to rely on secure encryption to ensure the security of the state you would swear to protect if (god forbid) you ever got to take the helm.
There is also no such thing as a government-only backdoor. Such a thing would be like wanting a "secret" door in your house (complete with "secret door, do not enter" sign), secured with a padlock, where opening the door also immediately disengages all security alarms you might have (so the potential "bad guy" won't notice when government uses the supersecret government-only door). If you can't see just why this is a BAD idea, you should throw in the towel. And I don't mean in the presidential election, I mean in life.
Harder To Do Its Job (Score:5, Insightful)
I see the same appeal to laziness from the RIAA/MPAA when it comes to anti-piracy programs and law enforcement when it comes to actual anti-terrorism procedures.
RIAA/MPAA: "Playing by the rules is too HARD! First you need to gather evidence. Then you need to file a John Doe lawsuit. Then you need to convince a judge that your evidence is good enough to get the person's name. Then you need to file a lawsuit against that person. Then you need to fight that lawsuit. Why can't we just say 'X did this wrong so destroy his computer'?!!!"
Law Enforcement: "Playing by the rules is too HARD! First you need to gather evidence. Then you need to convince a judge that your evidence is good enough to get a warrant. Then you need to use that warrant to get more information. Then you need to arrest that person. Then you need to present that evidence in a court of law. Why can't we just say 'X did this wrong so we're tossing him in jail'?!!!"
Cue the "democrats do it too" (Score:3, Insightful)
"democrats bailed out banksters"
"democrats take money from corporations"
"obama admin spies on people"
"obama uses drones"
etc., etc.
except on every single one of these policies, republicans are far more worse or openly promise, as jeb bush just did, to do far worse
yet you have this amazing cognitive dissonance where right wing media will pillory democrats for doing something republican candidates do far worse. "as a republican, i hate that the democrats do {X}, that's why i will vote republican" (who will do far worse on X)
at which point we have to address the air head idealists who will reject both parties and insist on ideological purity before they ever vote. thereby, making themselves not matter, and helping the guy further from them ideologically win
we are talking about POLITICS folks. the very nature of the topic is compromise. with politics and voting your job is to steer the boat of your society in the right direction by putting your hand amongst thousands on the steering wheel. not refusing to help unless the boat magically transports to where you are at ideologically first
you vote the party *closer* to you ideologically. that's as good a deal as you will ever get, in any society, ever possible. by refusing to participate until a choice matches you ideology, you are simply announcing your social immaturity and/ or stupidity on what politics is. it is YOUR job to wiggle a little bit in your ideological straightjacket and *influence*. rather than demand full ideological compliance before you participate. that's an ignorant temper tantrum
that being said, my dream for 2016 is trump v sanders. then sanders can win as trump is a fucking joke, and i will vote sanders with glee, as i love sanders
but if it's something like rubio v clinton, vote clinton! don't stay home ebcause it's not sanders. and if the contest is close, and enough air head idealist morons throw away their vote on sanders as a protest vote, or don't show up to vote, then guess what? then our next president will be rubio. and it's your fucking fault, for being an airhead idealist: you split the left wing vote. even though there are more on the left, you let the republicans win
so i love sanders. but depending upon the nominees, i will be voting for clinton who stands a better chance of beating a serious republican contender
that's called realpolitik
that's call strategy
idealism only gets you things like gwbush "beating" gore in 2000 (gore actually won the popular vote) because just enough morons on the left voted for nader when they should have voted strategically for gore
that is the real effect of voting idealistically instead of realistically: 8 years of a republican moron who got us in a ruinous war and cratered our economy and moved us backwards on progress on social issues
Re: (Score:3)
Dimwit.
The last time the US government tried this was the Clipper Chip, back in the 90s. That was started by the EVIL REPUBLICAN Bush Sr, and continued by the LOVELY, FLUFFY DEMOCRAT Clinton.
Fortunately, thanks to the fight against the Clipper Chip, the very idea of restricting encryption is now so insane that only idiots like Bush think it's actually possible.
If the government is to protect its people... (Score:3)
The Evildoers? (Score:3)
Now where have I heard that term before?
The Right to Encryption is Right to Bear Arms (Score:3, Interesting)
Can't we say that the same reasons behind the constitutional right to bear arms can be applied to a right to use encryption?
Isn't encryption already considered a "weapon" by the Pentagon?
Unencrypt (Score:4, Insightful)
I'll tell you what.. I will unencrypt all of my files if you and your government do the same. Complete transparency.
If you do, i'll even send you a list of all of my passwords and PIN numbers as well. Promise.
Remember, this was your idea.
Typical Republican.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Can anyone who's a member of the GOP *explain* why the party of "Smaller Government" always wants to expand government when it comes to spying on US citizens and expanding the military?
Why does it always come down to "cut social programs because we're broke", but "no spending limit for bombs/aircraft carriers"?
And while we're at it, can someone explain why "every life is precious" when it comes to abortion, but then have no problem thowing away lives on useless wars, and expanding the death penalty to include petty theft?
Why will they spend every dollar to force an unwed mother to bring her child to birth and then refuse to support it in any way once it's out of her womb?
And why are these questions NEVER ASKED at a "debate"?
No, not "Against Encryption" (Score:4, Insightful)
Jeb is lying, or an idiot, or both (Score:3)
> Bush says he hasn't seen any indication the bulk collection of phone metadata violated anyone's civil liberties.
That is true of a sensible and benevolent government.
However, your associations, even with casual friends, may land you on no-fly and watch lists with little to no recourse. Why are you on that no-fly list? How can you get off it? I can't help but wonder if casual aquaintances of the Tsarnaevs are on such lists just because they may have been study or workout partners, or casual friends, even though they never knew of their intentions. And yet, those evildoers were not on such lists despite urgent warnings coming from our frenemy Russia, who gave us names and dates.
Time after time I read or hear about those who are on no-fly lists - including infants, and have been unable to learn how and why they came to be on those lists, and how to clear their names, and there is NO due process or accountability, which is REQUIRED by the Constitution, citing "national security concerns" even though the greatest threat to our national security is tyranny within our own government.
And then, we have the "secret courts" which gag you; even if you do manage to clear your name and resolve the issue you cannot go to the media about your experience out of fear of reprisal.
So yes, Jeb (nice white trash name by the way), there are indeed civil liberties volations. Our government is supposed to be transparent and accountable to The People, but it actually in practice is not. Congress makes laws from which they often exclude themselves, treating themselves as royalty.
Are we really supposed to believe you, that our government is benevolent, when all the evidence as shared by Manning, Snowden, and Assange proves otherwise? Why on earth should we believe ANYTHING that you say when you believe the Patriot Act does not infringe upon our inalienable rights?
Re: (Score:2)
The 4th amendment still applies regardless of your stance on privacy.
Re: (Score:3)
The 4th amendment still applies regardless of your stance on privacy.
Yes, it does.. However the key term here is "search" because electronic data collection is not a seizure where something is taken from you. Here's the text of the amendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
On
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This field of candidates truly is the worst I've ever seen.
ADOLPH HITLER NOW!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
When Bin Laudin knocked down the towers he also scared the country so much that the bill of rights is totally, permanently doomed.
By voting for people like Jeb Bush or any other person that uses fearmongering as a justification to dilute and remove constitutional rights, you're directly making Bin Laden's actions even more successful.