Clinton Hints At Tech Industry Compromise Over Encryption (huffingtonpost.co.uk) 345
An anonymous reader writes: At the Democratic presidential debate last night, Marques Brownlee asked the candidates a pointed question about whether the government should require tech companies to implement backdoors in their encryption, and how we should balance privacy with security. The responses were not ideal for those who recognize the problems with backdoors. Martin O'Malley said the government should have to get a warrant, but skirted the rest of the issue. Bernie Sanders said government must "have Silicon Valley help us" to discover information transmitted across the internet by ISIS and other terrorist organizations. He thinks we can do that without violating privacy, but didn't say how. But the most interesting comment came from Hillary Clinton. After mentioning that Obama Administration officials had "started the conversation" with tech companies on the encryption issue, one of the moderators noted that the government "got nowhere" with its requests. Clinton replied, "That is not what I've heard. Let me leave it at that." The implications of that small comment are troubling.
No Backdoorts (Score:5, Insightful)
There should be zero back doors, ever. The government has ways to get information. In any event, want access to a mobile phone would likely be after the fact. And, if the government suspects someone, they have ways of listening in without compromising everyone. This kind of thing should be targeted. For suspected terrorists, a chair and a rubber hose works well.
Re:No Backdoorts (Score:5, Insightful)
In a post-Snowden world, only the naive would believe anything other than:
1) Backdoors exist.
2) Backdoors are kept secret.
3) The government routinely uses backdoors for big-data style tracking (and to gain superior market insight for insider trading).
4) The only data that remains secret is data over which you have superior end-to-end control.
The government will never accept a backdoor-free industry. Never.
Re:No Backdoorts (Score:5, Insightful)
The government will never accept a backdoor-free industry. Never.
Then ironically enough they will be the authors of their own destruction -- and all of us along with them!
Organizations like Daesh (I refuse to call them a 'State' because that's a bad joke), while complete assholes and utter animals, have proven that they have some tech savvy people in their ranks; what makes the U.S. Government think for a even a second that they won't have their own backdoor-less encryption? Of course the obvious answer here is that this isn't at all about stopping 'terrorists', it's about having complete and utter authoritarian, nigh-unto dictatorial control over the U.S. citizenry. I don't want to believe it but what else are we to believe? These idiotic politicians we elect must have tech advisors, they must be screaming in their ears that 'backdoors' in encrytion renders it as useless as using duct-tape to secure the front door of your house against burglars, and I'm supposed to believe that they're just shining these advisors on as 'alarmist' or something? LOL, no, it's corruption plain and simple I'm afraid. The Tree of Liberty has been rotting from the inside out for many many decades now, and we're seeing the end-stages of the disease that is killing Liberty and Justice in this country. At this rate it won't be long before we're considered just as bad if not worse than the Russian Federation, mainland China, or for all I know, Syria under the Assad regime. Meanwhile the Bread and Circuses are used to mollify and distract 99% of the U.S. population, they're clueless, and will look at you with a confused look on their faces, and fearful that you're just some crazed person -- then they go post on Facebook about it, like good little robots.
Re: (Score:2)
The TL;DR version - "The end is near!". It's 15 years after the Patriot Act that was supposedly the end times and we're having this debate because cell phone vendors locked up their phones with the best privacy-protecting encryption technology ever in consumer devices. Even a safe is less private than a locked iPhone at the moment, because they will drill that if they have to. I'm not saying it's all flowers and sunshine, but it's not exactly a few rebel freedom fighters against the evil empire either.
Re:No Backdoorts (Score:5, Insightful)
If you haven't noticed that things have gotten significantly worse over the last 15 years, then you haven't been watching.
This may not be "the end is near", but it's certainly an enabling intermediate step.
Re:No Backdoorts (Score:4, Insightful)
I'll never forget getting pushback from a lawyer regarding a desire to use AES with a claim that I'd need an export certificate. I pointed out that AES wasn't developed in the United States and that when I went to the Bureau of Standards website at the time that it linked to a foreign website for sources. Now how exactly was that an EXPORT or cryptography? Do these idiots think this country has a monopoly on crypto? On MATH? If they force the likes of Apple and Google to build in back doors then people will simply run their own apps to enforce it and they will be no closer to what they want. Sure, let's kill the cash cow that is our tech industry why don't we? Idiots...
Re:No Backdoorts (Score:4, Interesting)
I'll never forget getting pushback from a lawyer regarding a desire to use AES with a claim that I'd need an export certificate. I pointed out that AES wasn't developed in the United States and that when I went to the Bureau of Standards website at the time that it linked to a foreign website for sources. Now how exactly was that an EXPORT or cryptography?
Unfortunately, your lawyer was correct. I am not an expert on ITAR restrictions but I do get yearly training (and I slept at a Holiday Inn Express!).
Even if you imported something, exporting it back to where you originally received it from can be an ITAR violation. Stupid? Yes. Senseless? Of course. A perfect example of a normal government regulation? Perfect indeed.
*sigh*
Re:No Backdoors & IF THERE ARE ... (Score:2)
We all will suffer, and I won't put up any bank work online.
Terrorists will use "older hardware" or other separate "hideable" encrypted files which OS's can not see or stop. Steganography anyone.
Re:No Backdoors & IF THERE ARE ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Terrorists aren't even using encryption. They use languages we don't have enough interpreters to translate, along with substituting cliches for crimes in a way that defeats both computer translation and phrase-book translation.
Therefore they will not need or use the specialized systems you describe.
Re:No Backdoors & IF THERE ARE ... (Score:5, Interesting)
In an interesting article here [dailydot.com] former CIA and NSA director Michael Hayden claims* to be strongly against backdoors in encryption. It's law enforcement (FBI, DEA, etc) that are pushing for backdoors, not US intelligence (NSA). Hayden's rather chilling rationale is that since the NSA doesn't have to follow any rules, they can do bulk data and metadata collection and largely obviate the need to break encryption.
* Not that you can believe a thing he says, it's still useful to be clear on whether it's law enforcement or an intelligence agency deceiving you.
Re: (Score:2)
It wasn't intended as a "blanket" statement, it was a general statement. And it is generally true. Try harder next time. Does your attempted refutation even attempt to refute the main thrust of my claim, or does it leave the main thrust intact?
The biggest reason "the cloud" is doomed (Score:2, Interesting)
You're handing your data over to the government.
Re: (Score:2)
You're handing your data over to the government.
No, the cloud is handing your data over to the government. If it was you handing it over, it would be protected private data that had to be safeguarded.
When has to actually happen for you to start paying attention, anyways?
Re: (Score:2)
Look, we can't be paying attention all the ti - SQUIRREL!
Re: (Score:2)
Of those who understand it, they mostly don't care.
And the corollary, of course; Of those who care, they mostly don't understand it.
The biggest problem with backdoors (Score:5, Insightful)
The biggest problem with backdoors is not that they weaken encryption, although that's terrible. The biggest problem is that even with a warrant government shouldn't even know this stuff. ISIS or Daesh or whatever the heck they called it never endangered me. Never has, never will. But "my" government endangers me every day by getting involved in these situations and by making them worse. And now, conveniently, the fix for their screwups, according to them, is for me to sacrifice my liberty and weaken my technology.
I'd say "no thanks," but I don't get a choice. So instead I'm like the guy at a traffic stop having my car searched by an officer without probable cause. I won't resist you doing this to me, but I do not consent.
Re:The biggest problem with backdoors (Score:5, Insightful)
No, that is the damned problem.
There is NO technical means by which you can have a backdoor which is only usable by one government. Once you build in that kind of defect it stands a good chance of being exploited by anybody else -- other governments, hackers, criminals, and even the very terrorists you claim to be fighting.
And if the idiots in the US government feel the rest of the world should have weakened crypto for your security ... well, then the US government is an actively hostile entity to our security and liberty.
The belief that government should have unfettered access to everything we do, and that we should trust them is idiotic. Because it's not just one entity who potentially can gain access.
What they're saying is they want a skeleton key for every lock, and they're stupidly claiming nobody would ever abuse that and nobody but them could get to it.
Any product which builds in this for the US government should expect every other government to demand access to the same back door, and should also expect people in every other country to stop buying it.
This isn't a solution, and it never can be. You want access, you get a warrant, and compel people to give you the password.
But pretending you can access it but nobody else can indicates you're a moron who doesn't understand the technology. Once you weaken it, you have weakened it for anybody who can figure out how. That's doesn't leave anybody else with any measure of security.
The US government cannot create this without also understanding they've given a means to everyone else to hack into everything in the US by figuring out the way it works.
Re:The biggest problem with backdoors (Score:5, Insightful)
And if any politician says "Well, we'd only use it for good", then (besides not believing a single word they say) I'd ask "what about the next administration? And the one after that? Can you guarantee that they'll only use it for good also? What's to stop them from abusing it?"
Re:The biggest problem with backdoors (Score:5, Insightful)
It's simple existence opens up a huge list of problems.
If they think it's a backdoor solely for their purposes, they're delusional and too stupid to understand the technology.
And, just like all of the spy powers they gave themselves which they said would only be used for terrorism ... now they routinely use it for other forms of law enforcement (think Parallel Construction, aka institutionalized perjury).
The lie starts with the belief they and only they can access it. And then it snowballs into every way in which it will be misused.
But the reality is, we should stop at the whole idea there is any form of security once it's got a big gaping hole in it .. everything from banking to computer security is so utterly undermined with a backdoor it isn't funny. There isn't any security as soon as you have a backdoor. Not for anybody.
And the existence of such a back door makes it the single most valuable secret on the planet. It would be a shockingly short period of time before dozens of entities had access to it.
The big lie is that you can have any technical means to do this without throwing it wide open. Then it's just a matter of who is abusing it ... because the act of creating this backdoor means it's only a matter of time before there's no security at all.
You might as well pass a law that says pi is 3 -- because it means you're just as ignorant about reality.
Re: (Score:3)
And the existence of such a back door makes it the single most valuable secret on the planet. It would be a shockingly short period of time before dozens of entities had access to it.
The secrets of nuclear weapon construction used to be the single most valuable secret on the planet, and it didn't stop folks like the Julius Rosenberg from passing those secrets on to the Soviets. For tech companies to use encryption that contains a backdoor, it would require far far more people in the know about the secret.
Re:The biggest problem with backdoors (Score:4, Informative)
It wasn't just "folks like... Rosenberg," the Soviets managed to infiltrate (to a shockingly complete degree) all of the major US nuclear research locations. They were the second largest employers in Los Alamos and every nuclear facility.
History shows that those types of secrets don't wait around for a naughty person to leak them, they get attacked and accessed almost instantly.
Re: (Score:2)
Every bit as reliable as when they say "This is only temporary...".
Re: (Score:2)
There is NO technical means by which you can have a backdoor which is only usable by one government
My point is that even if there were, that wouldn't be a good thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Any product which builds in this for the US government should expect every other government to demand access to the same back door, and should also expect people in every other country to stop buying it.
But we could make it illegal for a US corporation to give a foreign government backdoor crypto access. That would prevent that from happening... ... until said corporation says "but we didn't give that backdoor access to this foreign government. Our Chinese/Russian/XXX subsidiary did, and they're based in those countries and employ Chinese/Russians/XXX and they have to comply with the laws of that country."
If Cisco can actively aid the Chinese government in torturing and political repression and get away wi
Re: (Score:2)
US law doesn't outlaw the torture of dissidents in China, it outlaws the torture of dissidents in the US.
It is against US law to interfere with foreign governments while overseas. It would be illegal for Cisco to interfere with China's activities, because they are sovereign. Their choices that are legal under US law are to do what China says while in China, or leave the place.
The US is politically and diplomatically opposed to the torture of dissidents in China. But that is a different thing.
It has absolu
Re: (Score:2)
When they outlaw security, only criminals will have it.
This is a band-aid solution by people who do not understand the consequences of wishing to redefine reality.
Anybody who thinks you can put a backdoor into crypto and not create a massive hole which can be exploited by almost anybody is too fucking stupid to have an opinion about cryptography.
Re:The biggest problem with backdoors (Score:5, Insightful)
Even if we could somehow assume that the government would only use its backdoors for good (an assumption that has no foundation in reality, mind you, but let's run with it for now), then there are still two problems with government backdoors.
First, any government backdoor is going to be a backdoor that criminals use. It's only a matter of time. So even if I were to trust a politician who said "We'll only use this for good", my question would be "and how are you going to stop the criminals who will use your backdoor as well?"
Secondly, even if we assume that the current government is populated by saints, you can't guarantee that the next government will be. Or the one after that. My standard question for those who want to give the government more power is "How would feel if a member of the other party was in charge and used this power?" If the person is a Republican, I would them to imagine President Hillary Clinton with that power. If the person is a Democrat, I ask about President Donald Trump wielding it. If you wouldn't want the opposing party using that power, then the only logical response is to keep the government from having that power entirely.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
What I read is that it's called "Daesh" because it doesn't deserve to be called a "state".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
And ISIS chose that name because ISIS wants everyone to believe they're going to be the ultimate Islamic power. Not calling them that is no different than choosing not to recognize them as a nation. Caving into their demands to call them ISIS gives them more power and legitimacy in their claim to rule all muslims.
All the legitimacy they require is in the Koran. They're very, very careful to make sure they follow their holy book to the letter. They made sure to "dot every i and cross every t" as it were.
Bonus points for the fact that they really hate being called Daesh.
No they don't. They don't care what the west calls them. You can find it in their English literature, they're more than happy to make fun of people calling them Daesh as if it's offensive.
Really the only thing they care is that they're "bringing back an Islamic caliphate" and that they're following Islamic law to the
Re: (Score:2)
"Daesh" is considered by many to be an offensive word, because it is an acronym that is a near homonym to multiple Arabic insults. Claiming they don't care about what they are called is a claim from you, not from them. Why do you speak for them, are you the new Daesh Spokesperson? No? Then maybe let them speak for themselves. If you think they don't care what people say about them, I guess you never heard of the controversy around offensive cartoons? It is a thing, look it up.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/w. [mirror.co.uk]
Re: (Score:2)
The Mirror isn't a good source for anything, but it is a great starting point for people to research the claims made by the people they quoted.
If you're inclined to "believe" things about them that are disprove, and wave away counter arguments using guilt-by-association, you're probably being an idiot. They murder people over what is said about them. Did you know that? I'll bet if you had a news source you could check on it.
OOOoooooh, you think Daesh is secretly the CIA? As a great man once said, "What a ma
Re: The biggest problem with backdoors (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
ISIS hates the term ISIS as well. They prefer Islamic State.
The reason why they don't like ISIS is because they believe that the Islamic State is the only valid country. Their interpretation of the Koran holds that man-made law is sin, only laws given to man by Allah are allowed to be enforced. Country borders are a construction/creation of man, therefore, countries are blasphemy.
They find the term ISIS (Islamic State in Iraq and Syria) offensive partly because they think the very -concept- of a country cal
You don't get it, do you? (Score:5, Insightful)
By requiring backdoors, you hurt your economy. Because nobody, not even US companies, and you may not even dream about foreign companies, will host any kind of content willingly in a country where any country on this planet has access to their secrets.
Yes, I wrote any country. Not just the US. Because one thing is certain: These keys are valuable. Valuable enough that it will be no issue to find someone (read: governments or corporations) willing to pay big sums to get the keys and people weak enough to take the offer.
There is no such thing as a "US government only" backdoor. Never has been, never will be. Require it and watch your IT industry falter.
Re:You don't get it, do you? (Score:4, Funny)
I expect they'll protect the NSA Key about as well as they managed to protect the TSA Key to everyone's luggage. Probably less so, because having a copy of the TSA Key just lets you steal people's underwear and the occasional camera. Having a copy of the NSA Key will give you access to every bank and email account in America which makes it a much, much more attractive target.
The right way to do it (Score:5, Insightful)
The elephant in the room, the thing that no one is talking about, is that there's a right way to do this.
If you have someone you suspect, you can peek into their system specifically using targetted means. Execute a "sneak and peek" search warrant and install a keylogger, for instance. Bug their house, tap their phone, put a tail on them, and so on.
All of these measures are effective, but they require warrants and reasonable evidence.
Also, the danger from terrorists is vanishingly small, compared to a lot of other dangers in daily life. Focusing on the backdoors is simply not warranted from the amount of danger that ISIS presents in this country.
Re: (Score:3)
Sadly, the reply from those pushing this stuff would be "But that's so HARD and SLOW! And it requires all this tedious paperwork for approval. We want something that can be done in a second with no red tape to stop us from getting the terrorists." (Translation: Remove all checks and balances, give them tons of power, and just "trust" that they won't abuse it.)
Re: (Score:2)
Sadly, the reply from those pushing this stuff would be "But that's so HARD and SLOW! And it requires all this tedious paperwork for approval. We want something that can be done in a second with no red tape...
That isn't sad at all, that is a political debate they are likely to lose!
Re: (Score:2)
There was not a giant flight out of European data centers after it was leaked that the US Government has access to all your files.
In fact, there wasn't even a minor flight.
Your analysis leaves out important data, like who else already has access to what, where, and what are the alternative locations for data centers?
Re:You don't get it, do you? (Score:4, Interesting)
Switzerland doesn't give a shit about either US or EU. After being the banking center of the world, they just might be the future data banking center for people who don't want pesky sniffers in their belongings.
Euphemisms (Score:4, Interesting)
"Tech Industry Compromise"? Is that some sort of euphemism for the tech industry capitulating to a vicious threat from the government?
Did anyone really think the discussion would be something other than:
Government: "Give us a backdoor or we will audit and regulate you into oblivion, not to mention issue endless National Security Letters"
Tech CEOs: "Umm, ok... Just don't make it public"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They negotiate, we get compromised (Score:4, Interesting)
Feds: We really need a back door into your encryption. ISIS, think of the children, sky is falling, etc.
Tech Industry: We've done the math. We stand to lose $xxx billion every year if we weaken encryption.
Feds: Think of the children.
Tech Industry: Here's our compromise. We get to keep stashing our global profits tax-free overseas. That's worth about half. We get to bulk import more H1Bs to keep labor costs down here at home. That's worth the other half. You promise to keep this a secret, that's worth another half (makes sure Fed isn't smart enough to do math on 3 halves..).
Feds: We think that's a great deal. Thanks!
So the tech industry gets what they want and makes the problem go away on a zero-cost basis. The Feds get to start bulk jailing people based on parallel constructions. The public gets zero reprieve from mass surveillance and the thing the government could do to help the public by making them pay their taxes and stop wage suppression they give up on.
Translation (Score:5, Insightful)
Way to build trust (Score:5, Insightful)
Clinton replied, "That is not what I've heard. Let me leave it at that."
Lets see Mrs. Clinton is not currently serving in privileged to information government role. These are conversations that would have taken place after she left office. So some how she is being fed information she can't or won't share with the rest of us. Yet we are supposed to trust her and vote for her. Screw that. She is the ultimate insider. People always accused the GOP of solving things in the back room while the old men smoke cigars. Maybe there is truth in that maybe not. What is clear is that HRC is very much a part of that old boys club, no matter what she has between her legs.
She can't be trusted, full stop. A vote for Hillary is a vote against your interests because the only interests Hillary has is in what is good for her.
Voting my interests (Score:2, Insightful)
She can't be trusted, full stop. A vote for Hillary is a vote against your interests because the only interests Hillary has is in what is good for her.
I don't trust Hillary but I trust the goons on the right even less because their interests are routinely directly contrary to my own as well as to what I consider good public policy. All politicians act in self interest and to presume otherwise is dangerously naive. I presume they are acting in self interest and just try to find someone who isn't too obviously a crook and whose interests and positions are closest to mine. I am fully aware that no politician is likely to be what I consider a perfect choic
Re: (Score:2)
So... who do you recommend? Sorry, Life is compromise.
Dishonest politicians (Score:3)
Because if you did, you'd have NOTHING to do with Clinton.
Where did I say I do? I didn't vote for her husband and she wouldn't be my first choice even within her own party. Though I'd vote for her over pretty much any of the republicans currently running which speaks more to how bad they are than anything else.
in other words, Hillary! LIED.
A politician lied. Gee, I'm shocked. If you can find one that didn't I've got some unicorn farts to sell you. No I don't think the Clinton's are honest. But I prefer their brand of dishonesty to some of the others. Isn't that twisted? I've seen the C
Re: (Score:2)
She can't be trusted, full stop. A vote for Hillary is a vote against your interests because the only interests Hillary has is in what is good for her.
And to think that isn't true for any politician (or corporation) is naive.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Clinton replied, "That is not what I've heard. Let me leave it at that."
Lets see Mrs. Clinton is not currently serving in privileged to information government role. These are conversations that would have taken place after she left office. So some how she is being fed information she can't or won't share with the rest of us. Yet we are supposed to trust her and vote for her. Screw that. She is the ultimate insider. People always accused the GOP of solving things in the back room while the old men smoke cigars. Maybe there is truth in that maybe not. What is clear is that HRC is very much a part of that old boys club, no matter what she has between her legs.
She can't be trusted, full stop. A vote for Hillary is a vote against your interests because the only interests Hillary has is in what is good for her.
One words captures the thought and sentiment behind your comment: Billary.
Re: (Score:2)
What Clinton said may have nothing to do with her former role or her government connections. I've heard similar things, mostly about Facebook.
I don't generally put too much stock in actual tech information I hear from a TWIT podcast, but I've heard Leo Laporte say on multiple occasions that Facebook is reportedly saying one thing to the public but another to the government - not that they are lying, but more they are encouraging the government to pursue backdoor access so Facebook can stop worrying about le
Re: (Score:3)
The polls show otherwise, especially for Sanders (and especially especially if the two wind up running against each other!).
Re: (Score:2)
Backdoors are a two-way street. (Score:4, Insightful)
What I don't understand is how none of these politicians who want backdoors into all encryption fail to understand that it would be just as easy for IS or Al-Qaeda or any other group that considers themselves enemies of the United States (North Korea, Iran, etc) to find and use the same backdoors against them. Sure, the government would likely continue using encryption themselves, but what's to stop IS from finding the backdoor and exploiting it to hack into the phones of foreign journalists or contractors? When (not if) IS or another group find their own way into that backdoor, they'll have essentially obtained a way of finding foreigners to behead for propaganda purposes, or to hold hostage for money in the case of Al-Qaeda or Iran, complete with real-time GPS tracking data.
Re: (Score:2)
What I don't understand is how none of these politicians who want backdoors into all encryption fail to understand that it would be just as easy for IS or Al-Qaeda or any other group that considers themselves enemies of the United States (North Korea, Iran, etc) to find and use the same backdoors against them.
They know all this, but, like most things, are thinking that most of us are too stupid / uneducated to know better. Seems to be true; case in point: Trump: "I'll build a wall and get Mexico to pay for it." (crowd goes wild) No one gets a serious answer to the follow up question: Um, okay. How?
Re:Backdoors are a two-way street. (Score:5, Insightful)
They know all this, but, like most things, are thinking that most of us are too stupid / uneducated to know better. Seems to be true; case in point: Trump: "I'll build a wall and get Mexico to pay for it." (crowd goes wild) No one gets a serious answer to the follow up question: Um, okay. How?
Actually, he has answered that question, but the media doesn't want to promote it or give it air time.
What Trump has said, more or less, is that Mexico is highly dependent on the US for jobs, money, and a bunch of other stuff, thanks to NAFTA.
To quote a phrase, "It might seem like we have each other over a barrel, but it just seems that way..."
If we had a leader with some balls, he can basically call up the President of Mexico and point out to him that while it seems like the US and Mexico are on equal footing, it just seems that way.
Mexico can help clean up the mess WITH our help, or we can help clean up the mess WITHOUT their help. Which choice would they prefer?
In other words... lube or no lube? Your choice, but one way or another, you're going to learn what is up.
That isn't politically correct to say, the media doesn't want to give it air time, but that is basically what he said.
Re: (Score:2)
Walled Garden (Score:5, Insightful)
If you owned root on your device, you could encrypt it yourself.
Who owns the backdoor? (Score:5, Insightful)
One thing I have yet to see any US candidate address is just who owns this back door and who acts as gatekeeper? Is it supposed to be US government only? Does North Korea get to have a peep under the covers? If not, why not? What do the candidates think about Russia requiring its own back door? How about Syria?
I doubt the scope they are thinking about extends much beyond the US, so why does the US get to think it has a right to my private data as an EU citizen? Because I might potentially, possible, maybe be a terrorist? Thats not good enough.
Also, how are these candidates proposing to make the terrorists use the backdoored encryption, rather than generally known and accepted as secure off the shelf libraries and vb.net UI front ends?
Reality doesn't care (Score:2)
You don't compromise with reality. Nor with mathematics. It is what it is, if you don't like that it really doesn't care nor does it have to. If the politicians insist on backdoors or "golden keys", their system's going to fail miserably and spectacularly. The only question is exactly what form the fireworks are going to take, and who's going to foot the bill for cleaning up the mess. My vote's that, if they keep insisting on this, we counter by insisting that they foot the bill for failure. We've warned th
Troubling (Score:2)
The implications of that small comment are that nobody trying to get elected is going to admit they've hit a brick wall and aren't going to be able to do shit about something they think a presidential candidate should be able to do.
If you think politicians saying whatever they think it takes to get elected is troubling, you'd best turn off all external news sources for, oh, about the
Re: (Score:2)
Grandpa woke up from his nap and decided to explain the meaning of life to the whippersnappers, that's sweet.
But gramps, they can't hear you. Their ears are so stuffed with neckhair they've become allergic to social justice, so it is physically impossible for them to comprehend civics or representative democracy.
Thanks for trying, though.
Compromise is possible, in a way (Score:2)
In Boolean algebra, there are two values 1 and 0. Same with encryption: data is either encrypted or not encrypted.
As such if Boolean algebra could be changed, by law, to have values other than 1 and 0, the the same principle can be applied to encryption. Customers can be told that data is encrypted, but for certain other unwanted parties data is not encrypted.
Re: (Score:2)
In Boolean algebra, there are two values 1 and 0. Same with encryption: data is either encrypted or not encrypted.
Va Obbyrna nytroen, gurer ner gjb inyhrf 1 naq 0. Fnzr jvgu rapelcgvba: qngn vf rvgure rapelcgrq be abg rapelcgrq.
it's a secret to everybody (Score:2)
After mentioning that Obama Administration officials had "started the conversation" with tech companies on the encryption issue, one of the moderators noted that the government "got nowhere" with its requests. Clinton replied, "That is not what I've heard. Let me leave it at that."
Oh, superb. Now we not only have secret organizations with secret appropriations running secret surveillance programs to gather secret evidence which is submitted to secret courts for secret trials, but we actually have a presidential candidate trying to convince voters to vote for her on the basis of privileged secrets that only she, of all the candidates, is allowed to know. How the fucking fuck can we run a democracy this way?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You do realize there are secrets that government officials only know. Democracies have run for some time this way.
I guess so, maybe. But there's a world of difference between the government being unwilling to tell you where exactly the nuclear missile silos are located and being unwilling to tell you why they broke down your Uncle Ahmed's door and trundled him off to Guantanamo Bay.
As for this particular case, Clinton saying this is, to me, like the Joker saying: "You should vote for me as mayor, because only I know the codes to deactivate the nerve gas bombs I planted in various locations around Gotham City."
Beta Test (Score:2)
I think if there's a compromise plan, that includes some sort of 'back door' way to bypass encryption, it should first be Beta Tested on Governmental contracts. All phones used by politicians and government employees should be the first to try out this new encryption bypass. After a 4-year (or more) testing period, we'll see if there's still a drive and desire to have this rolled out further.
Then again, congress should also be participating by mandate in the Healthcare Act. Don't require the people you r
Two considerations. (Score:2)
There are exactly two germane points:
#1 (and this absolutely is number one) people must be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, to include both the physical and the digital realms.
#2 Law enforcement and the intelligence community must be able to do their jobs. Cops need to execute warrants when they've been properly issued. The three-letter-acronyms in DC need to keep tabs on organizations, both foreign and domestic, who wish us ill.
The second
They don't understand the issues (Score:3)
I doubt any of the candidates have much understanding of the encryption issue. Not even people like Rand Paul when you hear them talk about it responses are cringe worthy.
Hillary is either making shit up with her that's not what I heard comments or has inside knowledge of misrepresentations made to the public she has no qualms keeping under wraps. Either way just another reminder of why she does not deserve my vote.
Or... (Score:3)
She could simply be lying. She does that quite a bit.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So your government doesn't give me what I want? OK. NEXT!
I'm a corporation. If I don't like what you offer, I move next door. And of course I take my taxes and my jobs with me.
Re: (Score:2)
They're all already double Irish, how much more Irish can they get?
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know, but I did see a triple-chocolate cake at the bakery last week.
Re: (Score:2)
They're all already double Irish, how much more Irish can they get?
By encoding everything in Gaelic given that possibly only two people in the world speak it.
Re: (Score:2)
If I don't like what you offer, I move next door. And of course I take my taxes and my jobs with me.
Like free people might do?
Re:What did anyone expect? (Score:5, Insightful)
Hearts and minds, my ass. What I want is your wallet. You can keep heart and mind, that's not marketable.
And trust me, people may bitch, moan and rant all they want, as long as they keep buying. And they WILL keep buying. Just look at Apple, Microsoft, Android... They bitch. They moan. They rant. They complain. They swear to hate everything they do. And they buy their product.
And that last bit is the ONLY thing corporations care about.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You can keep heart and mind, that's not marketable.
That's not true. Hearts, kidneys, livers, lungs... and the mind of a day trader are all very marketable.
Their politics is identical. Piss and moan, then reelect the devil they know. Such is the irrational man.
Re:What did anyone expect? (Score:5, Insightful)
Except if you're Hillary and part of the government you don't like wants your emails from the time you spent as secretary of state.
Re: (Score:2)
Why not both?
Re:What did anyone expect? (Score:4, Insightful)
It is very upsetting that all three candidates gave very wishy washy answers on this topic. Although to be honest they are just politicians so these answers are probably simply the ones their focus groups said alienated the least voters.
But the summary is reading too much into Hillary's comments. The moderators simply called Clinton out on her bullshit answer, and she made that last comment to save face. It was just another lie to cover for the lies in her other lies.
Re: (Score:2)
If you understood civics, and the process of classification of secret documents, you might have enough knowledge not to expect forthcoming answers from people who have seen real information, and are also running for office.
A fantasy politician who was going to make all the changes on these issues that you desire, whatever those changes are for you, would not be able to speak clearly on it before being elected. That is simply a fact. You're judging them using magical thinking.
Re: (Score:2)
Not supporting Clinton is literally Patriarchial rape. By supporting Sanders, you are basically supporting Trump and the continued oppression and systemic harassment of wymen online. Stop asking questions about internet survellance. President Clinton needs these powers to protect women from MRAs like you.
"Literally Patriarchal rape"?
That's fucking hilarious as a claim to support Hillary!
Wouldn't supporting Clinton be supporting real world Clintonian Rape? [wikipedia.org]
Thus supporting an actual rapist since the woman must be believed [hillaryclinton.com]?
You know, LITERALLY.
Re:these fascists (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a sad day when the candidates running for president are traitors.
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity or ignorance. Being a "traitor" implies intent, this is far more likely to be ignorance of a technical issue.
I'm surprised so many slashdotters expected these people to understand the technical issues.
Hillary Clinton's background might have discussed some encryption details because of some of her security scandals. Carly Fiorina also possibly understands the technical issues. But I would be shocked if any of the other candidates have any understanding of the issue.
For all the rest of the candidates, it is not something they've likely ever studied. For them, encryption might as well be some magical fairy dust that computer people sprinkle over computers for security reasons.
Re:these fascists (Score:4, Insightful)
This issue has been debated for months if not years. If they don't understand the issues at this point it is because they are willfully ignorant of them. Stop giving these people the benefit of the doubt.
Re: (Score:2)
This issue has been discussed for decades. The clipper chip was the same argument in 1992/93 and they failed to get support for it. This isn't a new avenue of thought in politics, as control has been the goal of anyone in power.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sufficiently-advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from malice.
Let me leave it at that. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I predict it will be slightly less coherent than a cartoon tasmanian devil. Until somebody Godwin's the thread by saying "Snowden" and everybody devolves to piles of neckhair accusing each other of believing in Justice.
Now get off my lawn with your survey! I don't want any!
Re: (Score:2)
Are there any candidates (where "candidate" is defined as someone who has actually gotten on the ballot in enough states for it to be possible to win, not a write-in) who would not support the compromise of encryption? I'm not talking about just from the major parties; I'm talking about literally any candidate that managed to get on the ballot.
Re: (Score:2)
5) Backdoor and some people know about it. Ideal for governments plus the insiders that sell the backdoor to criminals*. The public is kept largely in the dark: 'Go ahead and trust your tech with bank accounts and private data. We can't see it. Can't you hear us beg the tech companies for a backdoor?'
*Snowden was an anomaly. Not that he stole the secrets, but because he publicized what he found. Gov't personnel selling crap to their buddies in private industry and crime goes on all the time.
Re: (Score:2)
A password is treated like a key, and if they have a warrant you might have to turn it over. Refusal is the same as with a safe key; they can jail you indefinitely for Contempt of Court until you comply with the order.
Re: (Score:2)
The rest of the world does not like eating turds
LOL they'll even feed their babies poison instead of their own breast milk if a US Corporation tells them to.
The outside world might not be quite as sophisticated as you imagine.
For further insight, see also: Coca-Cola, Disney.
Re: (Score:2)
Silly cowherd, she doesn't have a current job in government; she isn't authorized to receive any information she would have to keep secret. If you had a case to make that somebody violated the secrecy act, she'd be the one person we could reliably rule out.
Haters don't think first, they just hate.