Hillary Clinton Urges Silicon Valley To 'Disrupt' ISIS 452
HughPickens.com writes: The NYT reports that Hillary Clinton spoke at the Brookings Institution's annual Saban Forum on Sunday and said that the Islamic State had become "the most effective recruiter in the world" and that the only solution is to engage American technology companies in blocking or taking down militants' websites, videos and encrypted communications. "We need to put the great disrupters at work at disrupting ISIS. We need Silicon Valley not to view government as its adversary. We need to challenge our best minds in the private sector and work with our best minds in the public sector to develop solutions that would both keep us safe and protect our privacy," said Clinton. "We should take the concerns of law enforcement and counterterrorism professionals seriously. They have warned that impenetrable encryption may prevent them from accessing terrorist communications and preventing a future attack. On the other hand we know there are legitimate concerns about government intrusion, network security, and creating new vulnerabilities that bad actors can and would exploit."
Code for Encryption Backdoors, obviously. (Score:5, Insightful)
You think Hillary is tech-smart? (Score:4, Insightful)
Her email fiasco already tells us that Hillary Clinton is merely a user of technology, not a developer
And you expect her to know the difference between 'Encryption' and 'Backdoor'??
Re: You think Hillary is tech-smart? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm pretty sure that Bill knows what a backdoor is!
Honestly, trying to enlist Silicon Valley by either A) totally failing to understand what market disruption is or B) leveraging an utterly hamfisted rhetorical device? That is just failing out of the gate. Hillary looks more and more like a clueless, doddering elitist with nowhere near the mental horsepower to serve as President... And I'll probably still end up voting for her in the general...
Who the hell is running this campaign?
Re: You think Hillary is tech-smart? (Score:5, Insightful)
If the past few presidents have been any indicator, then that being a clueless, doddering elitist is pretty much a requirement to even run for the position.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And I'll probably still end up voting for her in the general...
Idiot.
Who the hell is running this campaign?
Idiot. Are you voting for the campaign managers or the president?
You almost seem to care about what happens in politics ... but then you show that what you care about are the things that don't matter. Why the fuck are you going to vote for the shitty candidate when you know its a shitty candidate that you don't actually want. Thats a waste of a vote. It is better to do something wasteful like a write-in than it is to vote for someone you don't think should be president. Or don't vote at all FFS.
Y
Re: (Score:3)
How do you vote now?
You vote for the candidate you actually want. You never vote for the lesser of two evils.
Why? Because I've seen enough elections to see that the same thing happens every time.
First, you will get the choice between a really horrible candidate, and a really really horrible candidate.
Second, everyone will crusade to vote for the lesser of two evils, and they almost invariably say something along the lines of "yes, voting for your conscience is normally fine, but this is the most important election of our lifet
Re: Code for Encryption Backdoors, obviously. (Score:2)
Exactly, overt prevention discourages use. You get way better intelligence by allowing use of these resources. Additionally any attempt to disrupt use will inevitably prevent some legitimate use.
Re: Code for Encryption Backdoors, obviously. (Score:5, Insightful)
You get way better intelligence by allowing use of these resources. Additionally any attempt to disrupt use will inevitably prevent some legitimate use.
This argument only works for foes like the Germans with their Enigma and Lorenz machines during World War II, where the size of the foe's organization means that the foe is able to adapt when their existing technologies are disrupted. State-level military operations that are essentially at parity with one's own operations cannot be completely shut down or permanently disrupted so easily.
For non-state entities like terror organizations, disrupting their command and control and other communications might actually break real operations, and might even help serve to change the nature of those that would sympathize with them. Remember, there have been cases where law enforcement, not criminal entities, managed to contact and provide means and encouragement to disgruntled individuals that motivated them to act. It's not legally entrapment, but without communication, encouragement, and means, would these people have attempted to commit acts?
One has to wonder about the effectiveness of all of the monitoring that we've all been so perturbed by. We've had attacks in Paris and in San Bernadino where unencrypted communications were used and the attacks were not disrupted. This foe, while not insignificant, is small enough that using their communications to disrupt their acts should be very effective, but it's not proving effective. If it's not effective, then what's the whole damn point? This isn't World War II where the stakes for the enemy learning of the interception would mean that interception would end.
Re: Code for Encryption Backdoors, obviously. (Score:5, Insightful)
That is the key issue.
Trying to connect-the-dots is impossible. Because that is the wrong analogy. In reality it is about constructing thousands of "dots" out of the regular actions of HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF PEOPLE and then layering them on top of each other.
Soon you end up with hundreds of Billions of "dots" and not enough manpower to check even 0.0001% of the false positives. So the "bad guys" will always get through.
I think that it is insignificant. At least in the USofA.
If you are in the USofA and you die tomorrow, it will probably be from your diet. If someone kills you it will probably be someone you know.
Death by terrorism falls bellow death by ex-boyfriend/girlfriend.
Re: Code for Encryption Backdoors, obviously. (Score:5, Interesting)
This.
It should be also noted that 9/11 caused fewer deaths that year than the flu did.
San Bernadino is hardly even visible as a statistical blip. It wasn't even the majority of murders that particular day in the USA, much less something so significant that we should get our panties in a twist about it.
Want to really annoy Daesh? Try ignoring the whole "terrorism" thing, and treat this as just another murder investigation. Being treated as common criminals is much worse than any official acknowledgement of those clowns....
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: Code for Encryption Backdoors, obviously. (Score:5, Insightful)
So we shouldn't be concerned with sidewalks or pedestrian crossings or bicycle paths. Forget about railroad crossing alarms and barriers. Who cares about how many people die because of drunk drivers? Don't worry about whether or not the doctor has washed his hands. More health practitioners die from hepatitis every year than have ever died of AIDS, so why the sudden rush to use rubber gloves all the time? How many other ways of preventing "insignificant" numbers of deaths can you think of? I mean, we all eventually end up dead from some cause or another, right?
I don't hear any presidential candidates demanding unwarranted access to my private, encrypted information to tackle any of those issues.
Re: (Score:3)
Want to really annoy Daesh? Try ignoring the whole "terrorism" thing, and treat this as just another murder investigation. Being treated as common criminals is much worse than any official acknowledgement of those clowns....
But that eliminates the propaganda value! How can they keep Americans so acquiescent without scaring the hell out of them?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The only hope the Mid-East crazies have of living with each other is democracy.
Oh please, this is just dumb. Democracy is proven not to work in the middle east. They tried it in Egypt and elected the Muslim Brotherhood. Democracy doesn't work when you have a bunch of different factions constantly fighting each other. A strong leader like Assad or Saddam Hussein is what you need in those countries, to keep the peace and keep everyone in line, using brutal methods if necessary. Democracy only works in de
Re: Code for Encryption Backdoors, obviously. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: Code for Encryption Backdoors, obviously. (Score:5, Insightful)
In case of Paris, German police caught one guy with weapons in his car and plans for going to Paris. Assuming he wanted to participate in the terrorist attacks, that makes one out of nine terrorists successfully intercepted. By traditional search methods, not by communication surveillance.
Other attacks went entirely unimpeded (Charlie Hebdo, the 2004 Madrid train bombings and the 2005 London bombings). So I think monitoring communications is remarkably useless against terrorism.
Re: Code for Encryption Backdoors, obviously. (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is everyone thinks terrorism works like in the movies and television shows. Shadowy organizations, dead drops, burner phones, encrypted communications, cell after cell talking with each other and whoever their glorious leader of the week happens to be (until he gets blown up by a drone too)... that's not the strategy here.
The real threat isn't an organized conspiracy, it's a stand alone complex. A meme. People get taken in by the rhetoric and propaganda and individually or in small groups decide to do something to further the global jihad.
Re: Code for Encryption Backdoors, obviously. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
The reason we are no longer allowed to carry large volumes of liquids onto planes is because they caught the terrorist plot before it could be used
The 'terrorist plot' involved mixing nitroglycerine in the plane toilet. The technique that they were planning on using needs several hours on a steady workbench to be used. If, by some miracle, they'd managed to stay in the toilet for a couple of hours without anyone noticing, then the first bit of turbulence or vibration in the airframe would have resulted in an explosion just large enough to take off the hands (and, given how small aeroplane toilets are, probably more delicate parts) of the terrorists
Re: (Score:3)
Connecting a no-fly list and a no-weapons list is not inherently a bad idea; the problem is that the no-fly list (or maybe both lists, for all I know) need a fuck-ton of reforms to protect civil rights applied first.
Re:Code for Encryption Backdoors, obviously. (Score:5, Interesting)
This could work in the Middle East's favor... If they terrorize Western Governments into mandatory encryption backdoors for all communications, all of the multinational corporations are going to have to move their trade secret data centers and business transactions elsewhere. Sensitive business will be conducted in countries that allow strong encryption, and are have lots of shrewd businessmen... which sounds like what many countries in the ME are setting themselves up for.
This has happened before.... jews are pretty prominent in business and banking because most countries didn't allow them to own land, and for ages christians and muslims were forbidden to charge interest on loans. This created conditions that practically handed the entire middleman and long distance transaction business to jews. Perhaps... perhaps the Middle East, longing for the old days when they were a business empire powerhouse, has become desperate to find a niche to diversify their economy in the coming post-oil production years, and this may be a way to carve themselves a competitive business advantage on the world stage again.
Replace with what? (Score:5, Interesting)
Okay, we wake up, rise up and throw all the rascals out ... then WHAT??
What do we replace them with?
The same ol' shit?
It isn't that I am a cynic, but I've seen enough of the bullshit from inside the beltway to become extremely wary of the politicians
keep HER safe and protect HER privacy (Score:5, Insightful)
Buying votes (Score:5, Insightful)
bottom line: i'm done with her. she lies and lies even more to cover up those lies. thought she had a chance. no more.
Curiously, she seems to be polling higher [realclearpolitics.com] than the lead republican candidate (Trump).
Every time she speaks, she mentions how "there should be a tax deduction for $x", where $x is tailored to the audience. There should be a deduction for college tuition, a deduction for caring for elderly parents, an individual deduction for health care costs [time.com], and so on.
It would appear she's "buying" votes with tax incentives.
Of course, these are just campaign promises, and she's going to pay for it by raising taxes on the rich. Go figure.
Re:Buying votes (Score:4, Insightful)
bottom line: i'm done with her. she lies and lies even more to cover up those lies. thought she had a chance. no more.
It would appear she's "buying" votes with tax incentives.
Of course, these are just campaign promises, and she's going to pay for it by raising taxes on the rich. Go figure.
As opposed to the Republican candidates who essentially lie in the other direction (claim to lower taxes on the rich/businesses by killing programs that serve the working class/poor - effectively raising tax rates for the services they still receive.).
In the end they will both serve the elite and mega-corps and the NSA/security state. Have no doubt on that. If you don't think ISIS is a construct of US meddling with the middle-east, you haven't been paying attention.
Re:Buying votes (Score:5, Informative)
Consequence not construct. The roots were in Saudi Arabia with the rich sending money for "the struggle" and Turkey wanting something to counter the Kurds. Add in a large group of people locked out of the US funded government in Iraq and all it took was a match to blow up. So fuckup and not paying attention to actions of backstabbing allies instead of a deliberate construction. Yet another spectacular failure of spooks playing at being toy soldiers. The thing that boogles me the most is ISIL/ISIS/Daash were and most likely still are exporting large amounts of oil despite having skies full of opposing fighters and bombers.
Re:Buying votes (Score:5, Interesting)
You honestly believe nobody could see the sunni/shea war restarting?
It's only been going on for 1000 years, give or take. Everybody knew that it would get going again.
It was planned and the only reason they aren't crowing now is it would defeat the purpose. We don't want the Muslims to stop killing each other. At least not until they are out of oil and once again broke.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, the experts said that allowing the sunni/shea divide to increase by having only one side in charge of everything was very bad news. They were not listened to - hence the consequences. You knew this. I knew this. Every grunt on the ground in the middle east knew this. The spooks on the political fast track dismissed it out of hand as not their problem.
Remember t
Re:Buying votes (Score:5, Interesting)
by killing programs that serve the working class/poor - effectively raising tax rates for the services they still receive
Those programs are why we have working class poor. If you giving things to 'working' poor you or subsidizing labor, and pushing wages down below market rate. Programs for the working poor are not giveaways to the poor they are giveaways to 1%er corporate owners. They enable the expanding wage gap.
If you really want to help the working poor, you fix illegal immigration so everyone working in America has access to a common system of legal protections and nobody can be paid less than the minimum wage. That is the first step.
The next thing you need to do is start rolling pack all those social support programs, you need force people to do what they need to do to make ends meet. If that means leaving coasts for Midwest that is what needs to happen. We need to incite people to go where they can earn a living wage with the skills they possess.
Re: (Score:3)
"The next thing you need to do is start rolling pack all those social support programs, you need force people to do what they need to do to make ends meet. If that means leaving coasts for Midwest that is what needs to happen. We need to incite people to go where they can earn a living wage with the skills they possess."
One of the problem with this is that the groups with wealth have leveraged that to lock in the working poor. Need to cancel your cable because your income shrunk, that'll be a few hundred do
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Curiously? Admittedly, I am an outsider when it comes to American politics, but what I would find curious is if a retarded monkey failed to poll higher than Trump.
Re: (Score:3)
And as if that's not sad by itself, the fact that someone like Hillary is STILL considered the better choice... was the water cooler no option anymore? He sure had more personality than both of them combined.
Re: (Score:2)
Curiously, she seems to be polling higher [realclearpolitics.com] than the lead republican candidate (Trump).
That has more to do with Trump than Hillary.
Re: (Score:3)
Hillary is a big a hypocrite as they come; so why is she still so popular?
Oh, and I thought the USA was on ISIS;s side? You know, after 18months of NOT bombing the beeline of oil tankers going through turkey, until Russia came along and showed the USA what hypocrites they are.
Re:keep HER safe and protect HER privacy (Score:5, Informative)
You are correct, (Score:5, Insightful)
but she is not unique. It is a matter of logical necessity that *all* politicians lie.
First off, the job is most attractive to sociopaths, so liars are already over-represented in the group of candidates.
Second, the liars have an advantage over the honest candidates (the precious few) when campaigning, since the liars can promise that which they know to be impossible, or that which they have no intention of delivering. The liars can also produce stronger attack-ads to discredit their rivals, and can brazenly deny the ones produced against them even if they are true. Also, the liars have no problems forming alliances with special-interest groups who's interests run counter to the voter's agenda, and receiving more financial backing than the honest ones can. So, in general, the liars win.
Third, once in office, the only means of furthering a political agenda is to cooperate with other politicians and special interest groups. The system is designed to make it impossible to operate alone. So, those who are willing to compromise on their principles will have far more political allies. Those who are willing to lie as easily as breathe will have the most political allies, and will absolutely crush any politician that does not do the same.
So, eventually, the honest ones get shut down and shut out, leaving only the liars (and the *best* liars, at that) behind.
They all lie. They always will. Every damn one of them.
Re:keep HER safe and protect HER privacy (Score:5, Interesting)
Then again, there's that other guy on the Republican side that should have been finished in politics forever when the tollbooth idiocy came to light, and there's Trump who has been "captured" four times in business but has no time for a soldier who was captured.
The current flock make Carter and Nixon look like paragons of competence and virtue.
Re:keep HER safe and protect HER privacy (Score:4, Insightful)
I think Carter's the only person on the planet that has done more good when he wasn't president than when he was. I can't think of any other world leader who has done the same thing after their term in office.
Re:keep HER safe and protect HER privacy (Score:4, Insightful)
At least she's not hypocritical in using strong encryption for her own servers!
"the most effective recruiter in the world" (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe y'all should stop bombing civilians over there. It doesn't take much to "radicalize" somebody whose family was killed by American bombs.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Maybe y'all should stop bombing civilians over there. It doesn't take much to "radicalize" somebody whose family was killed by American bombs.
Moron. The stated goal of ISIS is a global caliphate governed by Sharia law implemented by the sword.
Re: "the most effective recruiter in the world" (Score:4, Insightful)
The stated goal of ISIS is a global caliphate governed by Sharia law implemented by the sword.
Exactly. They're willing to kill anyone who doesn't convert to their views and submit to their rule and they take a very long term view on their project. To say that we are not at war with these people, these radical Islamic terrorists, as President Obama and others within the Democratic party have done, is a flight from reality and into fantasy. ISIS seems willing to do whatever it takes for however long it takes to achieve their goals. Meanwhile, President Obama is busy telling everyone what we're NOT willing to do, like fight ISIS on the ground in Syria. If war is a test of wills, as Sun Tzu said, then who would the GP say is winning, our weak-willed President or the ISIS barbarians? We would all of us do well to ask ourselves that question when go to the polls in 2016 to elect a new President. Do we elect a warrior or do we elect another wimp? The sort of future your grandchildren experience may well depend upon it.
Re: "the most effective recruiter in the world" (Score:4, Insightful)
War leads to war leads to more war. Endless wars. Is that what you want for your grandchildren? The forced democracy/imperialism that the US has been doing for most of the 20th century has led us to the point we are now.
Peace with Germany, Japan, and Italy? Oh! The horror!
If a war against ISIS was truly the last war against Islamic radicals then I'd be all for it. Better to get it over with now before more innocents are killed. But no, it would be just another link in a long chain of wars.
How do you think it will work out if they keep making war against us and we stop trying to defend ourselves? Any clues about that? They aren't going to give up any time soon.
Statistically speaking, we have bigger problems than a few civilians being killed by terrorists every few years (gun deaths, car accidents, drug deaths, etc). But because we're so used to those deaths they've kind of faded into the background. Perhaps low fatality terrorism will become like that.
Other countries suffer far more deaths from terrorism, and it badly disrupts society. The reason there are few deaths in the West at present is due to the cause being suppressed. If that suppression is stopped then the death rate will go up.
Who cares? (Score:5, Insightful)
So? Who cares?
What's the worst that they can do to us? Or to China? Or to Russia? They're a third-string wannabe that is getting all the media hype because FEAR SELLS.
And it is easy for politicians to look tough by calling for more military action against them.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The vast majority of Muslims don't want to kill Americans, and the vast majority of Americans don't want to kill Muslims (other than daesh). We're happy to live in peace.
Re: (Score:2)
But that would decimate the bomb making industry!
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I see it as such a waste. It's amazing how well that groups like al-quaida and ISIS can motivate people to give themselves completely to their tasks. The world could be such a wonderful place if we could only figure out how to harness their talents to recruit fanatics for al-jebra and other pursuits.
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously you have never known someone who is *truly* impoverished and uneducated.
Re: "the most effective recruiter in the world" (Score:3)
Which doesn't describe the 9/11 bombers or the 7/7 bombers in the UK or most of the Paris murderers. We have people from the UK, from middle class families going off to a war zone hellhole. How they're doing that is a masterclass in motivation.
Re: "the most effective recruiter in the world" (Score:5, Interesting)
Islamic history that they don't teach at Harvard:
When American colonists rebelled against British rule in 1776, American merchant ships lost British Royal Navy protection. With no American Navy for protection, American ships were attacked and their Christian crews enslaved by Muslim pirates operating under the control of the "Dey of Algiers"--an Islamist warlord ruling Algeria.
In 1786, Jefferson, then the American ambassador to France, and Adams, then the American ambassador to Britain, met in London with Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja, the "Dey of Algiers" ambassador to Britain.
During the meeting Jefferson and Adams asked the Dey's ambassador why Muslims held so much hostility towards America, a nation with which they had NO PREVIOUS CONTACTS.
The two future presidents reported that Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja had answered that Islam: "was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Quran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Muslim who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise."
In 1805, American Marines marched across the desert from Egypt into Tripolitania, forcing the surrender of Tripoli and the freeing of all American slaves.
Re: (Score:2)
We have most certainly had terrorists arise due to government force. Bombing other countries is a more modern affair though, in the past they'd just occupy a country instead which would create home grown non-muslim terrorists in droves. The US uses bombings instead of occupations because it's more palatable to the voters. They don't care if someone foreign dies as long as no soldiers die (especially if they're draftees).
Although it's possible that the some terrorists groups in the 60s/70s were inspired b
Re: (Score:2)
"Just because we brutally murdered your wife and kids doesn't mean you have any reason to hate us. It's for your own good! Now get the fuck out of our faces and build a pro-western democracy or we'll bomb and torture everyone else you know."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: "the most effective recruiter in the world" (Score:5, Insightful)
Read the grandparent. It was talking about terrorism being a disproportionate response to the US bombing civilians.
The responses to 9/11 and Pearl Harbour were both disproportionate.
Following the US example, its entirely logical for the people getting bombed to want to become terrorists and bomb back.
Re: (Score:3)
Or why do the Christians and Jews that also suffer civilian casualties, often in the same villages as the Muslims, never get around to launching a global jihad?
Re: (Score:3)
> It isn't like there has never been a modern Christian terrorist movement. The IRA comes to mind.
Oh, the IRA comes to mind, does it?
First, the IRA has killed less than 2000 people since the 1960s. Al Qaeda killed over 2500 just on September 11th, and that's only part of AQ, which is itself only a part of all Islamist terrorism.
Second, the IRA isn't waging some kind of religious war- there is a big difference between religious people doing a bad thing based on some political goal, and religious people
Just give them the right tools. (Score:5, Funny)
Fine. Give ISIS Windows 10 free of charge. Job done. :-)
(I'm not sure about the Geneva Convention implications of this however.)
And who decides what speach is incorrect? (Score:5, Insightful)
Surely we can't trust someone who directly profited from the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, basically wrecking our economy.
Just say no to Billary...
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Clinton the arms dealer [ibtimes.com]. She also lied and tried to cover up this as well and had to resubmit her tax returns after she got caught. So not only did she sell arms for donations allowing people to skip State Department reviews, she failed to report the bribes on her taxes as well.
I think it says a lot about the DNC when she is their candidate of choice.
Hillary buys into market-speak (Score:5, Insightful)
Every time a tech company comes out with a new product, the marketing droids refer to it as (yet another) "disruptive technology".
The Internet is a disruptive technology. You could argue the World Wide Web is either part of that same disruptive tech, or you could probably say it is disruptive in its own right. But all the new stuff being built on top of one or both of those things isn't "disruptive" - it's just taking advantage of the disruption that's already well underway.
However back to the matter at hand... Hillary is just once again repeating the mantra "give us back doors in encrypted communications" - she's just trying to phrase it differently. But since I imagine she's aware the tech companies generally employ people who are much smarter than she is, it's apparent the message isn't really for them - it's for the American public at large.
Encryption for "good guys" only (Score:4, Insightful)
The two are mutually exclusive (Score:5, Insightful)
"On the other hand we know there are legitimate concerns about government intrusion, network security, and creating new vulnerabilities that bad actors can and would exploit."
You can't have one and not have the other!
"We need Silicon Valley not to view government as its adversary."
You can't brute force the private sector into spending money on compliance and weakening their products in the global market (Chinese contractors would LOVE to buy middleware with NSA backdoors!), and be "friends".
-----------
And more generally, the war on "unbreakable encryption" is just such an unbelievably stupid concept. It's an OBVIOUS power grab for intelligence agencies, and it takes nothing more than common sense to see that you can't ban encryption and mandate backdoors for everything. Encryption has been around for thousands of years and, barring spooky quantum computing tech, open source projects, personal projects, and most importantly *products from countries that don't mandate backdoors* will always be widely available to those who seek encrypted communication. If someone really cares about encryption, they'll still be able to find a solution. It's as dumb as spending years in court trying to block The Pirate Bay, and then WHOOPS they just change the extension.
More importantly, the recent terrorist attacks have been planned by UNENCRYPTED communication. We're talking facebook posts and text messaging!!! I mean *come on*, it's such an obvious power grab that won't make us any safer, like the TSA. It makes me sick to see these mouthpieces for power hungry organizations spout this asinine rhetoric and use these attacks to further their own agendas (like 9/11 was used to invade Iraq). It needs to stop, and the media needs to call them out. At least the major tech companies are pushing back against this. Then again, it's expected, they have billions of dollars of market value hinging on it, and risk being forced to be uncompetitive in broad swaths of security sectors due to these idiotic policies.
The whole thing is a can of worms. It's not like only America is going to get backdoors, that's just an unrealistic elitist view. Hackers get backdoors, corporations get backdoors which will inevitably be abused for profit as personnel changes over time, other intelligence agencies get backdoors, other countries will follow suit and get backdoors (China/Russia/you name it... Skype Saudi Arabia edition! Use it or be banned from the market in our country!) This entire line of policy, frankly, leads to shit, and Solicon Valley is right to consider these people their enemies.
Want to really get those terrorists? (Score:5, Insightful)
Keep on living in a free world while terrorists claw feebly at our liberty.
Dont join in on the bigotry. Thats what they want. They want us to hate them as much as they hate us. They want us to attack them like they attack us. They want all the decisions of the world decided by violence.
Dont give them what they want.
They have disrupted (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The code of any major OS is so insecure that the NSA should have no problem hacking into them, and figuring out what the terrorists want. Good job Silicon Valley! Way to disrupt!
FYI Redmond isn't anywhere near Silicon Valley...
(I kid, I kid)
Re: (Score:2)
Please make yourselves targets (Score:2)
Hi:
No. People in uniform get paid for that.
'Kthnxbye.
disruptive doesnt mean what she thinks (Score:2)
She just asked Silicon Valley to be a better, more practical ISIS to usurp the ISIS business model. She wants Silicon valley to deliver a better tool that more potential ISIS members will want to use to more effectively do what ISIS members do.
She just asked Silicon Valley to destroy America and its allies.
This is what happens when politicians and marketing people collide. But hey the sound bite registered well with Joe Sixpack.
Re: (Score:2)
So, war-cries of "Apple Ackbar" then?
Concessions First (Score:5, Insightful)
If you want something in Congress, you have to give concessions first. I say the intelligence community should give concessions before anyone helps them. Particularly, bolstering FISC with an agency that has the clearance and authority to investigate cases and programs of intelligence agencies, and the teeth to publicly expose and prosecute certain projects/actions and those who authorized them. Which projects you ask? The agency can refer one to a branch of FISC, who can hold mock trials for constitutionality, with the agency giving their case that it is unconstitutional or unlawful. If FISC is not unanimous that the project or action is lawful and constitutional, then the project is immediately put on hold pending the case being escalated to SCOTUS.
Furthermore, permanent gag orders related to national security letters and orders need to be replaced with ones that quickly expire. The no-fly list and terrorist watchlist need to be purged and reworked, with a vetting process for removal no more difficult than passing a classified information clearance background check. Policy and law should disallow mandated (or even voluntary cooperation a la PRISM) software backdoors. The agency should inspect domestic internet backbones and switching points to ensure the domestic intelligence community is not tapping them physically. Intel swapping to gain domestic data (e.g. Five Eyes) should be made illegal.
Then, and only then, should we give one fuck about what the intelligence community wants.
Censorship is not the answer (Score:3)
Creating a widespread system of censorship is not the right approach:
1) It violates the principles the United States was founded on.
2) Suppressing the free flow of information deprives people of the liberty to make their own informed decisions.
3) When other opinions are squelched, the communication channel becomes a propaganda channel and loses all credibility.
4) This infrastructure will be abused. Now, ISIS. Next, common criminals. Eventually, dissidents.
How about we do it more directly (Score:5, Insightful)
Blocking a few web pages isn't going to do anywhere near as much in comparison. They need funds more than they need recruits.
Re:How about we do it more directly (Score:4, Interesting)
shopping the shit out of it and still can't make a profit. Saudi Arabia the country is already screwed. They are now
operating at a huge loss and hemorrhaging money so fast that they will go bankrupt in 5 years without economic reform
They engineered the oil price drop. They gambled on breaking the U.S. fracking industry and lost as efficiency increased
fast enough, in concert with, lowered demand to out pace Saudi Arabia's production efficiency. S.A. planned on us banning
fracking, we didn't.
They also planned on China needing more oil than China does due to a slowdown in China.
Saudi Arabia has too much to handle at home to pick a dog in this fight. The hause of Saud is crumbling, there will not be a lot
more money to throw at things like political ideaology unless quite a few people stop being able to afford private jets, million dollar
sports cars, and estates in Monaco with each of the aforementioned on hand at all times plus a complete wardrobe equal to the
regality and status of the selection at home. Not to mention it's a lot more difficult to maintain and operate that U.S. sourced
military air power.
If we gave Hillary to ISIS ... (Score:2)
Oil (Score:2, Insightful)
Step1 in defeating them is so easy:
Severely punish everyone buying isis oil.
Assesinate them by cia if req'd.
But somehow, the super power with oil addiction is far too sensitive when it comes to oil interests.
Quit that oil addiction and hit the buyers hard.
Maybe put radioactive tracers in the wells, and close down all refinaries where the trace shows up.
Especially if it is a US owned refinary. Bomb it if you must.
Hillary don't know ... (Score:2)
... bullshit from wild honey.
That crap was teleprompted to her by non-techies and it comes out as a null.
She's against encryption but she appreciates that Americans value their privacy???
Which is it?
Also, I'm Silicon Valley-ish in that I'm tech.
Is she green-lighting for me to do some hacking?
"I was just trying to bring down ISIS for Hillary Clinton and stuff."
Pay those ... (Score:2)
... goddam Anonymous turds and get off our lawn.
easy (Score:4, Insightful)
This is easy, do I get anything for it?
Step One: Stop fucking supporting them.
There are good hints that Washington or Langley or Fort Meade or someone else high up in the US is directly or indirectly supporting ISIS. Possibly as a part of some geopolitical games like "let's remove Assad from power and seize his oil" or some such fucked-up shit.
Step Two: Stop fucking supporting their allies.
We know the list - Saudi Arabia, Turkey, various so-called Syrian rebel groups who ally with whoever pays them the most or gave them the most recent blowjob or whatever. Possibly Israeal though that are rumours I'm not sure about. Point is that if if you are fighting them with the one hand, and helping those who help them on the other, you shouldn't be surprised. Turkey is basically backstabbing the anti-ISIS coalition at multiple opportunities, because they don't like the Kurds and have their own plans for the area. Also, Putin is not the first to point out that most of the oil trade ISIS runs despite international embargo is going through Turkey. Saudia Arabia has been such an open supporter of islamic terrorism and jihad philosophy (remember 9/11 and where most of the hijackers were from?) that their oil and strategic alliance with the US is the only reason they've not been invaded long ago.
Step Three: Stop fucking "using the opportunity"
If you want to be serious about fighting ISIS, you need to stop seing them as a good opportunity, a nice pretext, a useful thing to have so you can push through your mass surveilance and pseudo homeland security bullshit.
Step Four: Stop fucking working on the next ISIS
All this messing with other peoples religions and internal politics got us where we are today. Al Qaida came out of the US misguided interaction with the Taliban predecessors in Afghanistan. ISIS is a direct result of the Iraq invasion and Saudi support of Wahabism.
If we bomb ISIS into oblivion but continue to play the same game, we will get the same result, again. And if we extrapolate the trend, the next one will be even more ugly. ISIS is not just a terror state, it's also a mindset, and removing it from the map won't stop it. It's not just in Syria, but over half of Africa as well, for example.
Re: (Score:3)
I amazes me that so few people can see that, except for the brazen world conquest thing, Saudi Arabia is not very different at all from ISIS.
And even that is starting to change, as noted even by this obvious fanboi [telegraph.co.uk].
Re: (Score:3)
1) Of course, officially the US never supported ISIS. The same way they didn't sell poison gas to Saddam and never planned an invasion of Kuba.
2) Turkey very much plays its own game and has active plans for its own caliphate, they just think of it as the resurrection of the Ottoman Empire. Why would Turkey mind one bit about ISIS? They fight the Kurds, Turkeys arch-enemy, and Assad, another political enemy. The enemy of my enemy is my friend...
3) Some things shouldn't be touched with a ten-foot pole, no mat
Re:So let me get this straight. (Score:5, Insightful)
God help us all should that moron get into office.
But when compared against Trump. It's like what options are we left with.
Idiots to the left. Idiots to the right. And no one supporting America's true interest in sight.
We do have a great candidate available who isn't an idiot and supports America's true interests. His name is Bernie. Of course, all the morons on the right don't like him because he believes in "socialism" (though it's really the democratic socialism that Scandinavian and other European countries have, basically what we already have with Social Security and Medicare but on steroids), and many morons on the left don't like him because he's male, not a minority, or not rabidly anti-gun (Gore was rabidly anti-gun: look how that turned out for us).
Trump is front and center (Score:5, Funny)
God help us all should that moron get into office.
But when compared against Trump. It's like what options are we left with.
Idiots to the left. Idiots to the right. And no one supporting America's true interest in sight.
Don't tell me what he *is*, tell me what he *did*. Tell me what he *said*.
Anyone can case aspersions on a candidate(*).
Here's an example of something Trump actually *did*.
At the first [R] debate everyone was falling over themselves to pledge not to run as an independent... except Trump. He forced the GOP to make a deal with him, and knowing him he probably got something out of the deal.
That's a level of political savvy that we don't normally see in America. If he can bring that expertise to the white house, then we might start getting better trade deals and better laws. He's said he wants to make America great again.
All of Trump's controversial statements have put him front-and-center in the minds of Americans for the last 3 months. He's had more name recognition than all the other candidates put together, including Hillary.
I can name several things Donald has said in the last 3 months, none of which are without merit or irrational.
You may disagree whole heartedly, but you can't claim that any of them is irrational or without merit. Most of the controversy has been puffed up by the media by using sentence fragments taken without context.
In the last three months, what has Hillary said?
(*) I'm a fan of Trump, and would welcome informed debate about the candidates. Unfortunately, most people here can't rub two words together to spark a rational argument. Anyone is welcome to take that as a challenge, if you feel up to it.
Re:Trump is front and center (Score:4, Informative)
An effective trick is to state problems but not solutions.
If you do not believe in magic it's best to avoid those that employ that trick.
So there you go, something to watch out for and how someone can say something that is perfectly true but completely and utterly useless.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Idiots to the left. Idiots to the right. And no one supporting America's true interest in sight.
This should be a bumper sticker.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: So let me get this straight. (Score:3, Insightful)
Clowns to the left and jokers to the right sounds like a succinct summary of politics in every English speaking country.
Re: (Score:2)
Well for the people who care about this, they only see people as a "minority" if they're a racial minority that generally doesn't do well economically in the US. So Jewish people (which isn't really a race, there are many different ethnicities of Jews) and Asians don't count. The full term is "disadvantaged minorities". Somehow Asians don't get this status because, while they're certainly a minority, they actually do really well scholastically and economically, usually a lot better than Caucasians on ave
Re: (Score:3)
Which is quite illogical, people who are working hard instead of holding their hand out and yelling "gimme!" sure are a very tiny minority today.
Re: (Score:2)
You can't prove the Quran wrong; that's completely ridiculous. It's not a scientific text, it's a history book along with some mystical mumbo-jumbo and a bunch of philosophy. The mystical crap can't be disproven unless you can build a time machine, and you can't "disprove" a philosophy. The only thing you can do is try to convince people it's a bad philosophy. But philosophies basically are by-products of cultures and their ethoses, and you can't just force change on a culture. The only thing you can
Re: (Score:3)
You can't prove the Quran wrong; that's completely ridiculous. It's not a scientific text, it's a history book along with some mystical mumbo-jumbo and a bunch of philosophy. The mystical crap can't be disproven unless you can build a time machine, and you can't "disprove" a philosophy. The only thing you can do is try to convince people it's a bad philosophy. But philosophies basically are by-products of cultures and their ethoses, and you can't just force change on a culture. The only thing you can do is separate yourself from a culture you find distasteful.
I think there is something else you can do. There are over 1 billion muslims. I'm not sure what percentage are "extremists" but only a small percentage are "violent extremists". As I'm more familiar with the christian faith, I'm going to talk about it but I think the same basic premise probably applies. Most christians are not extremists. Most "christian extremists" do things like build churches in third world countries and/or pray in front of abortion clinics. A very small percentage of christian ext
Re: (Score:2)
Most "christian extremists" do things like build churches in third world countries and/or pray in front of abortion clinics.
No, they do more than that. They go to 3rd-world countries in Africa and build churches and then teach people how "evil" gay people are, and encourage them to pass laws legalizing the murder of gay people.
We need to figure out what makes a person cross over where they are willing to blow up a whaling ship, attempt to assassinate the president, etc...
I don't think it's that simple. Fo
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
John Stewart did a frightening but very insightful sketch drawing direct comparisons between the American Tea Party and the Taliban. It was funny and chilling at the same time.
Not at all. Why should I find the rule of law, reduction of the extent and power of the US federal government, or responsible fiscal policy to be something to fear? This reminds me of Vox Day's three rules [americanthinker.com], behavior exhibited by someone incapable of understanding certain contrary beliefs or viewpoints and imbued with a certain passive aggressive behavior:
1) Always lie.
2) Always double down.
3) Always project.
We see all three behaviors exhibited here. Core beliefs of the Tea Party movement have long b
Re: (Score:3)
I'm so glad you can make some argument based on principle, and show by equivalence that you could, in theory, have a problem with violent Christian extremists, violet environmental extremists, and so on down the list. But why don't you go by something like "body count" and figure out which of these things is actually a real problem?
One thing that ticks me off in political debates goes like this:
Person A: George Bush sucks, because X.
Person B: I disagree, because Al Gore sucks, because Y.
Two things wrong
Re:Did she just call for... (Score:5, Informative)
No, she called for all the companies to backdoor their encryption. If anyone steps up, then the government praises them and pats them on the head and gives them contracts and starves the competition. If no one steps up then they start passing laws to ban encryption. "I tried to talk with them rationally, but they kept on allowing math to happen, leaving me no choice but to bring out my men with guns!"
This is dog whistle for "do what I say or else". Obviously this means Hillary is a bad choice for president, but she's smugly aware that there's no good choice.
Under Bill, they almost pushed through clipper / capstone, backdoored encryption where the government gets a master key and you get a slave key. This is more of the same.
None of this would be justified if all the terrorist attacks recently had been coordinated over encrypted messages using mainstream products. But instead, none of it was- it was all plain text or face to face. This is all about making it so that encryption is harder to get- the idea that ios 8+ and new androids will be encrypted in place by default is making them panic.
Re: (Score:3)
Stop it. You're gonna make me cry.
Re: (Score:2)
In 1965 Si valley was Orange groves.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This is all well and good (Score:5, Informative)
Hedy Lamarr -- Frequency hopping and spread spectrum
Agnes Meyer Driscoll -- developed the "Communications Machine" or "CM", the standard cypher machine used by the U.S. Navy for a time; she also broke JN-25, the post Perl Harbor Japanese fleet operational code.
Elizebeth Friedman -- sometimes credited as the first female American codebreaker -- broke a Mandarin Chinese code used in the opium trade, as well as a number of codes used by bootleggers in the prohibition era, and went on to design some of the security measuers still in place at the IMF (International Monetary Fund).
Maureen Baginski -- Signals Intelligence Director during the 2011 attacks on the U.S.; worked at the NSA
Mary "Polly" Budenbach -- directed the NSA's "Technical Consultants organization.
Wilma Davis -- mathematician who broke Italian diplomatic codes in the 1930's, Japanese Army code messages in WWII, worked on the Chinese team for a while, and then moved on to "Venoa", a covert group tasked with breaking Soviet messages.
Minnie Kenny -- Directed the National Cryptologic School for the DoD and NSA; if you think the fact of her genetalia is significant (you shouldn't), you will also be surprised that she was black.
Ann Caracristi -- one of the people responsible for applying the (then new) computational technology to signals intelligence within the NSA; established the first laboratory for doing so.
Genevieve Grotjan Feinstein -- worked with the SIS (Signal Intelligence Service) as a cryptanalyst reading Japanese diplomatic messages; make the breakthrough that resulted in the creation of an analog computer to read the Japanese "Purple" code.
Joan Daemen -- Rijndael
Shafi Goldwasser -- zero knowledge proofs used in asymmetric key algorithms ...
That's doing about 5 minutes worth of looking, and omitting about half of what I found.
almost... (Score:5, Informative)
FWIW, I think Joan Daemen [wikipedia.org] might object to your classification of him as a famous woman (unless you were going for the minority designation with him as someone from Belgium).