Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×
Encryption Businesses Government Security

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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Hillary Clinton Urges Silicon Valley To 'Disrupt' ISIS

Comments Filter:
  • by tysonedwards ( 969693 ) on Sunday December 06, 2015 @09:33PM (#51070119)
    Why try to be cute? Just say it.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 06, 2015 @09:50PM (#51070197)

      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'??

      • by chaboud ( 231590 ) on Monday December 07, 2015 @12:12AM (#51070847) Homepage Journal

        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?

        • by Opportunist ( 166417 ) on Monday December 07, 2015 @03:47AM (#51071445)

          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)

          by BitZtream ( 692029 )

          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

    • 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.

      • by TWX ( 665546 ) on Sunday December 06, 2015 @10:30PM (#51070437)

        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.

        • by khasim ( 1285 ) <brandioch.conner@gmail.com> on Monday December 07, 2015 @12:18AM (#51070875)

          We've had attacks in Paris and in San Bernadino where unencrypted communications were used and the attacks were not disrupted.

          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.

          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.

          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.

          • by CrimsonAvenger ( 580665 ) on Monday December 07, 2015 @06:11AM (#51071767)

            Death by terrorism falls bellow death by ex-boyfriend/girlfriend.

            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)

              by matria ( 157464 )
              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 ev
              • by AikonMGB ( 1013995 ) on Monday December 07, 2015 @08:04AM (#51071995) Homepage

                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.

            • 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?

          • by jblues ( 1703158 ) on Monday December 07, 2015 @06:31AM (#51071793)
            There was a (verified) statistic going around Australia last year in response to government policies, showing that, in Australia, you're much more likely to die falling out of bed, than from a terrorism related event.
        • by Lonewolf666 ( 259450 ) on Monday December 07, 2015 @03:09AM (#51071357)

          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.

        • by Shadow of Eternity ( 795165 ) on Monday December 07, 2015 @07:37AM (#51071929)

          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.

    • by rwa2 ( 4391 ) * on Sunday December 06, 2015 @10:20PM (#51070365) Homepage Journal

      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.

  • by turkeydance ( 1266624 ) on Sunday December 06, 2015 @09:37PM (#51070135)
    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.
    • Buying votes (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Okian Warrior ( 537106 ) on Sunday December 06, 2015 @10:23PM (#51070383) Homepage Journal

      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)

        by rsborg ( 111459 ) on Sunday December 06, 2015 @10:28PM (#51070417) Homepage

        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)

          by dbIII ( 701233 ) on Sunday December 06, 2015 @11:21PM (#51070631)

          If you don't think ISIS is a construct of US meddling with the middle-east

          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)

            by HornWumpus ( 783565 ) on Sunday December 06, 2015 @11:40PM (#51070713)

            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.

            • by dbIII ( 701233 )
              You are acting as if Horse Judges and the spook that called in a set designer to do up his office like Star Trek are not calling the shots.
              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 DarkOx ( 621550 ) on Monday December 07, 2015 @08:42AM (#51072077) Journal

          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.

          • "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)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Curiously, she seems to be polling higher [realclearpolitics.com] than the lead republican candidate (Trump).

        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.

      • by MikeMo ( 521697 )

        Curiously, she seems to be polling higher [realclearpolitics.com] than the lead republican candidate (Trump).

        That has more to do with Trump than Hillary.

    • by labnet ( 457441 )

      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.

      • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 06, 2015 @11:17PM (#51070621)
        Anybody who has been paying attention has known for a long time that the Turks have been buying ISIS oil and that they could starve them of money if they wanted. However the Turks love ISIS because they fuck up the Kurds, and the Turks hate the Kurds almost as much as they hate the Armenians who they slaughtered by the millions so they'll keep supporting ISIS as long as they continue to fuck up the Kurds. Since Turkey is a major NATO ally and is uniquely positioned to bottle up the only warm water ports the Russians have the USA is not going to do shit to the Turks and only make completely ineffectual measures against ISIS that Turkey is cool with. So we'll send a drone off to murder a wedding party here, drop a bomb on a goat there, and every once in a while spend $millions to Hellfire the shit out of some barren patch of desert there because arms merchants needs to gets paid. Basically the same old shit we've been doing since 2001.
    • You are correct, (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 06, 2015 @10:30PM (#51070435)

      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.

    • by dbIII ( 701233 ) on Sunday December 06, 2015 @11:12PM (#51070605)
      The Manning leak that showed she wanted the credit card numbers of diplomats of allied nations so that they could be used for blackmail (yes something that stupid was in writing and available at Manning's clearance level) should have finished her. She probably kicked off the Swedish Assange stupidity as revenge.
      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.
    • by quantaman ( 517394 ) on Monday December 07, 2015 @01:35AM (#51071153)

      At least she's not hypocritical in using strong encryption for her own servers!

  • by Fwipp ( 1473271 ) on Sunday December 06, 2015 @09:37PM (#51070139)

    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)

      by Anonymous Coward

      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.

      • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 06, 2015 @10:12PM (#51070323)

        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.

      • Who cares? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by khasim ( 1285 ) <brandioch.conner@gmail.com> on Monday December 07, 2015 @12:27AM (#51070907)

        The stated goal of ISIS is a global caliphate governed by Sharia law implemented by the sword.

        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)

      by Anonymous Coward
      If that were the only thing, muslims would be rising up against ISIS, because ISIS kills many more civilians than the US. And not accidentally: they kill them in brutal ways, on purpose. This is good reading, too [theatlantic.com].

      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.
    • But that would decimate the bomb making industry!

    • by rwa2 ( 4391 ) *

      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.

      • "It's amazing how well that groups like al-quaida and ISIS can motivate people to give themselves completely to their tasks"

        Obviously you have never known someone who is *truly* impoverished and uneducated.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 07, 2015 @12:37AM (#51070947)

      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.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 06, 2015 @09:40PM (#51070147)

    Fine. Give ISIS Windows 10 free of charge. Job done. :-)

    (I'm not sure about the Geneva Convention implications of this however.)

  • by fred911 ( 83970 ) on Sunday December 06, 2015 @09:41PM (#51070151)

    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)

      by Anonymous Coward

      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.

  • by 93 Escort Wagon ( 326346 ) on Sunday December 06, 2015 @09:43PM (#51070165)

    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.

  • by netcruiser ( 1645001 ) on Sunday December 06, 2015 @09:53PM (#51070211)
    She's asking how to crack encryption so that only "good guys" can listen in on conversations; she's making it sound like a technical problem when it is a political decision.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 06, 2015 @09:54PM (#51070221)

    "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.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 06, 2015 @09:55PM (#51070227)

    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.

  • by phantomfive ( 622387 ) on Sunday December 06, 2015 @09:56PM (#51070231) Journal
    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!
    • 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)

  • Hi:

    No. People in uniform get paid for that.

    'Kthnxbye.

  • 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.

  • Concessions First (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mentil ( 1748130 ) on Sunday December 06, 2015 @10:16PM (#51070343)

    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.

  • by subreality ( 157447 ) on Sunday December 06, 2015 @10:18PM (#51070353)

    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.

  • by dbIII ( 701233 ) on Sunday December 06, 2015 @11:04PM (#51070575)
    How about we do it more directly and stop buy oil from those Saudis that are funding ISIS/Daash and those oil companies that are buying oil from ISIS/Daash.
    Blocking a few web pages isn't going to do anywhere near as much in comparison. They need funds more than they need recruits.
    • by BigU+03C0mpin ( 4358169 ) on Monday December 07, 2015 @03:09AM (#51071359)
      Go read about how well the Saudi's, and that silly little thing called OPEC, are doing at the current price of oil.They're
      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.
  • Well... I mean it'd seem we'd be solving a few problems at once
  • Oil (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Bram Stolk ( 24781 )

    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.

  • ... 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."

  • ... goddam Anonymous turds and get off our lawn.

  • easy (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Tom ( 822 ) on Monday December 07, 2015 @06:36AM (#51071799) Homepage Journal

    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.

    • 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].

Mathematics deals exclusively with the relations of concepts to each other without consideration of their relation to experience. -- Albert Einstein

Working...