Slashdot Mirror
Jeb Bush Comes Out Against Encryption
An anonymous reader writes: Presidential candidate Jeb Bush has called on tech companies to form a more "cooperative" arrangement with intelligence agencies. During a speech in South Carolina, Bush made clear his opinion on encryption: "If you create encryption, it makes it harder for the American government to do its job — while protecting civil liberties — to make sure that evildoers aren't in our midst." He also indicated he felt the recent scaling back of the Patriot Act went too far. Bush says he hasn't seen any indication the bulk collection of phone metadata violated anyone's civil liberties.
That's ok, most people are against Jeb Bush. Encryption makes it harder for the Stasi to do its job?
Jeb was already on his way to irrelevant, just another nail in his political coffin.
Jebby is a a RINO a best and most likely a New World Order statist.
I wouldn't piss on him if he was on fire...
"I say we take off, nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."
Hopefully he puts his foot so far into his mouth that he won't be a viable candidate anymore.
A government back-door into encryption systems is essentially a huge attack vector left open. You don't even need any experience in encryption to understand that. However, apparently being a politician makes this a much harder fact to grasp.
That sounds like a threat... "If you make encryption, we won't bother with protecting civil liberties any more."
It's easy for Jeb to call for more privacy invasion when he has the money to evade any sort of personal consequences of this.
I don't want to get elected but am doing this because they are making me
This makes it so much easier for me. I can now just store Passwords, Credit Card Numbers, and PI in plain text.
Half of writing history is hiding the truth.
I would vote for Donald Trump before voting for Jeb based on this issue.
Collecting "meta-data" (really just data) about the context of people's phone calls is no different than collecting information on what library books people are checking out (which IS protected).
It's a serious invasion of privacy.
Is there a candidate who understands this?
Besides being an asshat in general, this is one more reason not to vote for him.
Which other candidates share this view?
"I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
If Jeb is against encryption, I bet Hillary is too.
Maybe she'll be smarter (not that hard) and just not say anything about it.
I wonder how their fincial industry donors feel about the anti encryption stance? Wouldn't they fear the economic repercussions of having China get the backdoor keys and running up a tab?
It seems like every time this guy opens his mouth he makes another mistake. Trump is right about one thing - Bush is a low energy candidate. This guy looks like he has been dragged kicking and screaming into this campaign. He has little interest and fewer ideas. Anyone that is against encryption and in favor of expanding the Patriot Act won't get my vote. Time to hang it up Jeb.
Well this is historic. For once, a presidential campaign has a candidate specifically for identity thieves and credit card fraudsters.
And take your stupid brother with IQ 90 along your way to hell!
The 4th amendment still applies regardless of your stance on privacy.
"A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
When comes out against all this nonsense with passwords and door locks, then he gets my vote!
.
Prisencolinensinainciusol. Ol Rait!
Is anybody here really considering voting for him? Or any other republican or democrat? Seriously? We're doomed! Doooomed!
C'mon folks! Get it together here...We still have over a year to find something a bit more acceptable, *a blender, anything*...
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Ask those folks in Ashley Madison dump how they feel about encryption
... The Internet comes out against Jeb Bush.
As a Republican, his views on encryption and the Patriot Act are not reconciliable with mine. I can scratch him off the ridiculously long list.
What that said, it's pretty hard to get any politician not named Donald to truly speak his mind. Thanks, Gov...
...to be worn at all times, to help the state recognize commies, pinkos, faggots and liberals. Also, Jeb Bush wouldn't recognize civil liberties if they were branded on his forehead.
Idiot
Good to see good ole' Jeb Bush put his foot in his mouth.
Elect me, and I'll remove every damn bit of protection put in place after 9/11. I think leading using fear tactics is shameful.
FREEDOM
"If you create encryption, it makes it harder for the American government to do its job — while protecting civil liberties — to make sure that evildoers aren't in our midst."
I will never vote for someone who uses the word "evildoer". The last guy to use it in office didn't work out so well...
And I don't give a shit that it is hard(er) for the US government to step on my throat. We have restrictions on the government because the government has proven time and again that it cannot be entirely trusted. If they have to work a little harder I don't care at all. The Bad Guys aren't going to use weak encryption (unless they are stupid) and there is no reasonable argument that can be made that I shouldn't have access to it either. Bad encryption is effectively the same as no encryption and no encryption is unacceptable when using modern technology.
He also indicated he felt the recent scaling back of the Patriot Act went too far. Bush says he hasn't seen any indication the bulk collection of phone metadata violated anyone's civil liberties.
Then he is just as much of an imbecile as his brother. Jeb clearly has the same moral deficits as George. Trump may be a clown but apparently Jeb is much more dangerous.
X \in Candidate and X \in Republican => isNuts(X) = true
>implying you'll be safe from terrorists
So are Clinton & Obama evil or not?
And what about the big, bad government?
Ah, to hell with all these posers, the most deserving is the guy who's been consistent all along anyway.
SANDERS 2016!!
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
at the Fletcher Memorial Home.
Which other candidates share this view?
Once they get into office it seems like most of them... They want whatever makes their life easiest and your civil rights can be damned.
Why can politicians not shut up about things they do not understand? Obsessive-compulsion disorder?
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
You can have all the privacy you've got left after the state has noted all your contacts, listened to all your phone calls and read all your email.
America: The New USSR
There are (reportedly) 10,000 govt employees in the Ashley Madison hack that would probably disagree with you, Jeb.
actually, several justices have said basically this. given the power of modern technology, it's time to re-evaluate the scope of the 4th amendment.
>implying you'll be safe from terrorists
Correct. Plus there's nothing stopping people from creating their own communication software, protocols or encryption that would bypass whatever is being backdoored by the government.
"A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
Plus this would provide a huge economic boom to criminals now that the barriers to entry would be lowered. Maybe that's how he was planning to increase GDP growth?
Just skip straight to the election to get rid of Hindenberg and Schleicher all at once. Hell, the economy is so bad, and the Mark so worthless, I'll take ANYONE over those two clowns!
Similar to the upcoming US election results
Yes, it is. We should be even more strict in what the 4th Amendment covers. Fuck Jeb Bush and his ilk.
Where do you think we will be building the Trump Memorial? And how are we going to make Trump's hair work on Mt Rushmore?
I agree! Let my secretary here inspect your dick and weigh your balls... We have to make sure you measure up..
See, if you have a little dick, chances are you are pissed off as hell and want to blow up the boys locker room (or the confessional) where everybody (and the priest) laughed at you.
C'mon, you have nothing to hide, right?
Sorry, but there is no polite way to say it. Shut the fuck up if you don't have the foggiest clue what you're talking about.
Lowering the encryption standard not only would make it easier for law enforcement to break the encryption of bad guys, it would also make it easier for bad guys to break into the secrets that do actually ensure your national security. And no, making some security services and three letter goons exempt from it won't change shit. There are still companies, government agencies and other entities that have to rely on secure encryption to ensure the security of the state you would swear to protect if (god forbid) you ever got to take the helm.
There is also no such thing as a government-only backdoor. Such a thing would be like wanting a "secret" door in your house (complete with "secret door, do not enter" sign), secured with a padlock, where opening the door also immediately disengages all security alarms you might have (so the potential "bad guy" won't notice when government uses the supersecret government-only door). If you can't see just why this is a BAD idea, you should throw in the towel. And I don't mean in the presidential election, I mean in life.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
No wonder his posters say Jeb and not Bush. Different name, same shit.
Thanks for the update. That's another candidate scratched off my list.
Privacy is an outdated concept. It is a low price to pay for safety from terrorists.
Says the Anonymous Coward! Perhaps you should check out this concept.
Similar to the upcoming US election results
I have a hard time finding one redeeming quality in the man. He supports torture, he seems to have a disdain for virtually all human rights and he's a banker who has pushed for bailouts for his industry while saying every other industry should keep themselves afloat. The only thing I would agree with him on is increasing NASA's budget, however I imagine that position is wrapped with so many strings (SLS boondoggle) that they could lasso the Moon
I see the same appeal to laziness from the RIAA/MPAA when it comes to anti-piracy programs and law enforcement when it comes to actual anti-terrorism procedures.
RIAA/MPAA: "Playing by the rules is too HARD! First you need to gather evidence. Then you need to file a John Doe lawsuit. Then you need to convince a judge that your evidence is good enough to get the person's name. Then you need to file a lawsuit against that person. Then you need to fight that lawsuit. Why can't we just say 'X did this wrong so destroy his computer'?!!!"
Law Enforcement: "Playing by the rules is too HARD! First you need to gather evidence. Then you need to convince a judge that your evidence is good enough to get a warrant. Then you need to use that warrant to get more information. Then you need to arrest that person. Then you need to present that evidence in a court of law. Why can't we just say 'X did this wrong so we're tossing him in jail'?!!!"
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho 2016! YEEEEEEHAAAAWWWWWW MOTHERFUCKERS!!!!
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Once again, another politician exudes his complete ignorance of technology.
The full quote: “If you create encryption, it makes it harder for the American government to do its job — while protecting civil liberties — to make sure that evildoers aren’t in our midst.”
1. Encryption has already been created.
2. The American government's job is to protect civil liberties, like, I don't know, privacy maybe?
3. If evildoers are in our midst (and they are), leaving our data un-encrypted makes their job of attacking us and our way of life much, MUCH easier.
So what did we learn today again? That politicians (no, Jeb Bush is not the only one) don't grasp the things that technicians learn on day one of their data security class. This further reinforces that anything related to online privacy and data security should be taken out of their incompetent hands. Let the technologists handle the technology, let the politicians play politics, but don't let the politicians make judgements on things they don't understand. Their lunacy must be quarantined.
So far:
Jeb hates encryption
Hillary "doesn't understand" computers and email
Donald thinks NASA is a waste of money
Anyone who has looked into the scientific evidence behind 9/11 knows there was never any outside "terrorist" threat, which means the patriot act and mass spying wasn't to get the baddies at all. This is about nothing more than making sure political dissenters can be picked out and silenced. This word "terrorist" has morphed over the last 30 years like a boiling frog in a pot and today may be applied to ANYONE who doesn't buy the lie. Keep in mind Jeb was part of the PNAC think tank that likely played a significant roll in planning the attack.
"...and called for a 'much better, more cooperative relationship' with Apple, Google, and other tech companies that are building uncrackable private communication apps into their new products."
Well this is a fine way to start forging a better relationship. Call them out for using dangerous things like "encryption". Clearly, he hasn't talked to any legitimate security experts about this, let alone talking to a representative from any of the aforementioned companies. I mean, did he even look up encryption on wikipedia before bashing it?
The 4th amendment still applies regardless of your stance on privacy.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects"
sorry it says nothing about digital data that others accumulate about you.
So I can't have an encrypted marriage?
Did he learn NOTHING from his brother's tenure? There should be a team of handlers with cattle prods around every make Bush never uses that word again.
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
Seriously, who will want to vote for this twat after the whole NSA debacle...
The 4th amendment still applies regardless of your stance on privacy.
Yes, it does.. However the key term here is "search" because electronic data collection is not a seizure where something is taken from you. Here's the text of the amendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
One could argue that data collection that is not searched is still allowed under the constitution. One could then argue that as long as the government has a warrant based on probable cause that outlines the kinds of data to be searched that they do not violate the 4th amendment.
I'm not arguing for unfettered data collections, just for a bit of understanding that there ARE legal arguments for how it doesn't violate the constitution.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
ALL YOUR - well, everything - ARE BELONG TO US
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
"democrats bailed out banksters"
"democrats take money from corporations"
"obama admin spies on people"
"obama uses drones"
etc., etc.
except on every single one of these policies, republicans are far more worse or openly promise, as jeb bush just did, to do far worse
yet you have this amazing cognitive dissonance where right wing media will pillory democrats for doing something republican candidates do far worse. "as a republican, i hate that the democrats do {X}, that's why i will vote republican" (who will do far worse on X)
at which point we have to address the air head idealists who will reject both parties and insist on ideological purity before they ever vote. thereby, making themselves not matter, and helping the guy further from them ideologically win
we are talking about POLITICS folks. the very nature of the topic is compromise. with politics and voting your job is to steer the boat of your society in the right direction by putting your hand amongst thousands on the steering wheel. not refusing to help unless the boat magically transports to where you are at ideologically first
you vote the party *closer* to you ideologically. that's as good a deal as you will ever get, in any society, ever possible. by refusing to participate until a choice matches you ideology, you are simply announcing your social immaturity and/ or stupidity on what politics is. it is YOUR job to wiggle a little bit in your ideological straightjacket and *influence*. rather than demand full ideological compliance before you participate. that's an ignorant temper tantrum
that being said, my dream for 2016 is trump v sanders. then sanders can win as trump is a fucking joke, and i will vote sanders with glee, as i love sanders
but if it's something like rubio v clinton, vote clinton! don't stay home ebcause it's not sanders. and if the contest is close, and enough air head idealist morons throw away their vote on sanders as a protest vote, or don't show up to vote, then guess what? then our next president will be rubio. and it's your fucking fault, for being an airhead idealist: you split the left wing vote. even though there are more on the left, you let the republicans win
so i love sanders. but depending upon the nominees, i will be voting for clinton who stands a better chance of beating a serious republican contender
that's called realpolitik
that's call strategy
idealism only gets you things like gwbush "beating" gore in 2000 (gore actually won the popular vote) because just enough morons on the left voted for nader when they should have voted strategically for gore
that is the real effect of voting idealistically instead of realistically: 8 years of a republican moron who got us in a ruinous war and cratered our economy and moved us backwards on progress on social issues
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Why do Christians pray "Lead us not into temptation"? Making it harder for the government to descend into a police state and surveillance society makes the actual job of the government easier. Pervasive access to communication is a temptation that the government must resist. The people are not your minions. They're your boss.
Yep! Why the fuck does that word keep showing up in political statements? It makes them sound like children.
Except that the majority of "evil" done in this country is NOT encrypted. It is publicly displayed and celebrated.
old people afraid of the encryptionsz :(
It does make it so much easier to protect your civil liberties when you give them all up for that protection.
I haven't watched closely, so I hadn't heard a peep from this guy until now. I just sort of assumed he was running a STFU strategy, waiting for everyone else to self-destruct.
And for that, I thought he'd win. Seriously: "President Bush."
Jeb, WTF were you thinking, with the talking in public?! *facepalm*
All it seems he cares about are the immediate people around him, and not his constituents. (cheyney)
here is a clear example of how much he wanted to be like his "kin"
perhaps its just a tax write off. No real expectation of winning, just looking for a business loss to write off..
so if he looses this race, what happens to his position in florida?
Could imagine another 8 years of BUSH?
I find it interesting, this voting process
"lets just give them a pile of people whom are not qualified, dont bring any value to the process, and in the end will push all the votes to the individual we really want.."
sad state of affairs
If American's vote this guy in I might actually lose faith in humanity and jump off a tall building. "Evildoers"? Seriously? What are you 8? You can't even invent your own horribly ignorant and disconnected term for people that don't like you? Even worse you blindly copy your big brother (arguably the worst president in US history)? Fuck it... Goodbye cruel, retarded world.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
how many people on the left are calling for increased government surveillance?
Well, lets see. The top "man" on the left is certainly doing it. And he really got pissed when the patriot Snowden revealed what his administration was doing. And his party seems to be behind him (in both this and the destruction of American ideals in plenty of other ways). So all in all I would say most of them.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
...then promoting encryption is what will help. Think about it: it's always the government playing catchup to hackers when their (the government) systems are breached. And that's with encryption. If the "evildoers" wanted to do harm, removing or hindering encryption makes it that much easier for them (the evildoers, though I suppose the government could arguably be placed into this group, too).
We could do worse than Trump... But.... We could do a LOT better too. I sure hope Trump get's tired of spending his money on this side show pretty soon...
The summary nature of voting on legislature (yea, nay, abstain) puts an upper bound on the amount of damage a bad congressman can do.
Essentially, there are a finite number of times any congressman can vote on an issue. If they vote against the interests of the people every time, they've reached maximum damage.
The same can be said of presidents (pass, veto, pocket-veto, &c.).
Few issues are black-and-white: most laws are some percent good for the people and some percent bad. The two issues I can find that are closest to 100% bad for the people are H1B Visas and the Patriot and USA Freedom acts.
H1B visas take jobs away from Americans and allow corporations to impose misery on the imported workers, and the Patriot act and related violates our rights and makes us less safe (by diverting resources away from effective strategies like intelligence gathering).
The relevant votes are shown below. The government doesn't care about our rights, and it doesn't care whether we have jobs. It has reached maximum damage.
Trump might be the worst president we've ever had, but at this point in time, he's not *guaranteed* to be the worst.
USA Freedom Act (Senate)
YEAs: 67 (D = 43, R = 23, I = 1)
NAYs: 32 (D = 1, R = 30, I = 1)
Not voting: 1 (R)
USA Freedom Act (House)
https://www.govtrack.us/congre...
YEAs: 67 (D = 124, R = 179, I = 1)
NAYs: 32 (D = 70, R = 51, I = 1)
Not voting: 2 (R) 5(D)
Increase H1B Visas (Senate)
https://www.govtrack.us/congre...
YEAs: 67 (D = 52, R = 14, I = 2)
NAYs: 32 (D = 0, R = 32, I = 0)
Comment removed based on user account deletion
came out in favor of total surveillance even before the debate.
It's amazing how fast the Republican candidates are running away from the freedom position now that they're actually running.
But it's a sad fact that too many people will agree to anything and follow anyone when they're scared. When Bin Laudin knocked down the towers he also scared the country so much that the bill of rights is totally, permanently doomed.
Its the 'effects' part you dolt
Good-bye
This seems like a dangerous precedent having a president that's against encryption. I would like the government to protect information from spies and hackers. Encryption sounds like the perfect tool. Not that we needed another reason not to elect another Bush, but having the government unencrypt all of their communication seems dangerous. The first time he forces the credit card companies to transmit all transactions unencrypted there's going to be hell to pay.
The Republican party is never going back to being sane, the threat of being primaried is worse than that of killing their constituents. They will prefer to refuse Medicaid, lower taxes on the rich till the government looks like Greece and starve Medicare etc.
The Democrats move back to the right after being elected. The Republicans scream and shift blame and deadlock but they won't ever be able to govern responsibly ever again.
NO MORE: Bush's, Clinton's, or CAREER politicians!
Trigger word.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
Where do you think we will be building the Trump Memorial? And how are we going to make Trump's hair work on Mt Rushmore?
Plant it with kudzu.
Evildoers?
Now where have I heard that term before?
Political correctness is really just herd psychology pushed by insecure people who desperately seek social conformity.
Jeb, How many convictions have been gotten from the use of this bulk collection?
How are we assured that this is not used against citizens?
While I liked Jeb as governor of Florida, there are some policies that I do not agree with.
Can't we say that the same reasons behind the constitutional right to bear arms can be applied to a right to use encryption?
Isn't encryption already considered a "weapon" by the Pentagon?
It's a bit depressing that so many joined Ashley Madison. That such vast numbers would cheat on the people they claim to most love suggests more vast numbers would be even quicker to take advantage of people they don't care about. On the other hand, did those hackers help anyone or have they destroyed many families that would have survived had a little cheating stayed hidden? Is the effect of the exposed data destructive or helpful? Will cheating end now?
Now imagine the power that spy agencies around the world that engage in online surveillance have that can find out far more than someone cheating on spouse. Poorly phrased words in a moment of anger....a few mistakes they made in their life.... a few bad acquaintances. All a few keystrokes away from being anonymously exposed on the internet... then destroying your life.
One could justify the violation of all of our rights under the guise of protecting us from criminals and terrorists. Shall we exchange our freedoms for the sake of someone that claims they won't ever cheat on us? Should we accept the assurance of strangers that the information they collect on us is only going to be used for good intentions? To those that believe it, sign up for Ashley Madison. Good luck.
And how big is the danger from 'evildoers' for the country to have weak encryption? Isn't this far worse?
love is just extroverted narcissism
He really said "evildoers"? What is this, September 12th 2001?
Democrats in prison in Gitmo, why would anyone listen to him? He should be in prison for the spew of threats he makes. The Bush Crime Family hates us and wants us to die. They have killed killed killed. That is what their kind does. Why are they not in prison?
I'm not arguing for unfettered data collections, just for a bit of understanding that there ARE legal arguments for how it doesn't violate the constitution.
Lawyers will argue that anything is anything.
Do you really, honestly, believe that the people who wrote the Constitution believed the US government should be able to spy on everyone, all the time?
He had 0% chance of being the nominee, just like Mitt Romney had 0% chance of winning a few years ago.
Though I am curious where the front runners stand on this issue. I am not curious about Jeb, Carly, and other nobodies.
No matter how bad the current president is, we (read: the media) will all forget who he was the minute we have a new guy in the chair.
This seems fine. We know for a fact that the government has use the utmost restraint when snooping on communications so far.
I'm against encryption too, Mr. Bush. I value our freedoms and security - just like you do.
I'll tell you what.. I will unencrypt all of my files if you and your government do the same. Complete transparency.
If you do, i'll even send you a list of all of my passwords and PIN numbers as well. Promise.
Remember, this was your idea.
Political correctness is really just herd psychology pushed by insecure people who desperately seek social conformity.
Can anyone who's a member of the GOP *explain* why the party of "Smaller Government" always wants to expand government when it comes to spying on US citizens and expanding the military?
Why does it always come down to "cut social programs because we're broke", but "no spending limit for bombs/aircraft carriers"?
And while we're at it, can someone explain why "every life is precious" when it comes to abortion, but then have no problem thowing away lives on useless wars, and expanding the death penalty to include petty theft?
Why will they spend every dollar to force an unwed mother to bring her child to birth and then refuse to support it in any way once it's out of her womb?
And why are these questions NEVER ASKED at a "debate"?
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
Jeb Bush is not against encryption, just encryption for you.
I've been all over the internet and they apparently don't exist.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
> Bush says he hasn't seen any indication the bulk collection of phone metadata violated anyone's civil liberties.
That is true of a sensible and benevolent government.
However, your associations, even with casual friends, may land you on no-fly and watch lists with little to no recourse. Why are you on that no-fly list? How can you get off it? I can't help but wonder if casual aquaintances of the Tsarnaevs are on such lists just because they may have been study or workout partners, or casual friends, even though they never knew of their intentions. And yet, those evildoers were not on such lists despite urgent warnings coming from our frenemy Russia, who gave us names and dates.
Time after time I read or hear about those who are on no-fly lists - including infants, and have been unable to learn how and why they came to be on those lists, and how to clear their names, and there is NO due process or accountability, which is REQUIRED by the Constitution, citing "national security concerns" even though the greatest threat to our national security is tyranny within our own government.
And then, we have the "secret courts" which gag you; even if you do manage to clear your name and resolve the issue you cannot go to the media about your experience out of fear of reprisal.
So yes, Jeb (nice white trash name by the way), there are indeed civil liberties volations. Our government is supposed to be transparent and accountable to The People, but it actually in practice is not. Congress makes laws from which they often exclude themselves, treating themselves as royalty.
Are we really supposed to believe you, that our government is benevolent, when all the evidence as shared by Manning, Snowden, and Assange proves otherwise? Why on earth should we believe ANYTHING that you say when you believe the Patriot Act does not infringe upon our inalienable rights?
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
...as "Jeb Bush Comes Out". That probably trumps (ha!) being black in Political Correctness Bingo, but I fear it's a bridge too far for most politicians, especially of the right wing variety.
The word "evildoer" has been around a lot longer than you have. Merriam-Webster says the first-known use is 14th century.
Oh the face-slapping irony. The freedom to create encryption is a civil liberty.
Higher Logics: where programming meets science.
Yeah, I fully agree with him, encryption only makes it harder for our government[*] to to its job to spy. So stop it.
Vote for Bush!
[*] By the way, I'm from Germany.
The language was (understandably) just not sophisticated enough back then to address these types of issues. But it's clear exactly what they meant, even if their choice of words leaves some ambiguity.
Most linux users don't know this, but the man pages were named after Chuck Norris. Chuck Norris fsck'ing hates noobs!
I'm not arguing for unfettered data collections, just for a bit of understanding that there ARE legal arguments for how it doesn't violate the constitution.
Lawyers will argue that anything is anything.
Do you really, honestly, believe that the people who wrote the Constitution believed the US government should be able to spy on everyone, all the time?
I'm not a lawyer.. But I play one on TV and I stayed at a holiday inn express last night...
The argument here is easy.. You have to prove that the 4th amendment prohibits the *collection* of these electronic records in all cases, including when the records are never looked at. Does it always violate the 4th amendment? I'm not so sure it does, specifically when the records are NOT searched.
So the question becomes can the collected data legally be searched and If so, under what conditions? I think the 4th amendment makes that clear, you need a specific warrant to search for anything, and running a search on this data requires the same.
So, IMHO warrantless searches of the data are forbidden by the 4th amendment, but the collection of the data does not seem to be forbidden if it's not searched.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
"If you create encryption, it makes it harder for the American government to do its job"
Uh... sold!
Hillary agrees with him on this one.
Another reason not to vote for this guy. The first is that he is a Bush and true Americans don't believe in aristocracy.
The government is always using scare tactics against the people saying we need to be protected. There's super bad people out there and they can't find them without seeing all our private data. What if we started telling people how bad it really would be without encryption?
Without encryption, your own neighbors would be able to see your emails as you transmit them, your banking details, etc. Anyone at the coffee shop could get this information from you. The government will be spying on you without your knowledge all the time. They'll know about everything you buy online, every web site you visit. Criminals will sit on the street outside of your home and watch your WiFi traffic to find things to blackmail you with.
Those are extreme's of course but there's probably lots of things we can think of to get the word out. Maybe even spin it to tell people how strong encryption is helping protect them every day. We just have to use examples they'll understand. Things like, "Your bank uses strong encryption to protect your bank information but Jeb Bush wants the government to see what your doing".
When a policeman comes to your house to search it, what is the purpose? To gain information about what you have in your house. To collect data about you. A search and data collection are essentially the same thing.
The best thing about UDP jokes is I don't care if you get them or not
He seemed ok on some other things, a bit more moderate on many issues, but this...geez, taking sides against the citizens' rights to privacy, that's a deal killer instantly.
Even Obama's not argued for that one...
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
For open source encryption. Fuck Jen Bush! We don't need another Bush in the Whitehouse. I'd rather Trump.
He's only polling so low because there are so many candidates. Also he's very popular with big donors. It's going to either be him or Walker running, and odds are winning. Hillary is probably going to get the nomination this time around and she completely fails the 'have a beer with' test.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Guess actually being in the constitution isn't enough for these people to make it so, this is the scariest thing since BO started presidential decrees to "Make it so" regardless of what the law/constitution actually says (And yes, saying that you are acting because Congress refuses to act in the way you want them to isn't an excuse here)
I have mod points and I am not afraid to use them
No, data collection is collecting data. It does not need to be interpreted as a search until somebody or something inspects the data looking for something.
"Essentially the same" is not "exactly the same" and there in lies the open legal ground. One can argue that making copies of data is not a search if the data is not actually inspected. Clearly if the data is inspected we have a search that requires a warrant by the 4th amendment, but it's not so clear that just collecting it legally constitutes a search.
Now, it may not be a good idea for the data to be collected in that it may lead to illegal searches, but that's a totally different argument than what most people try to make on this topic.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Trump is not disrupting the Republican voters, he's disrupting the Rinos and looters DC's Beltway gangs.
And I wish people would stop acting like he will. As soon as the GOP clown car empties we'll be left with Jeb and Walker because those are the candidates the billionaires want and we are not a Democracy. Then the billionaires will decide amongst themselves out of those two and the Democrats will lose because Hillary had all the charm of a ball python and Americans vote with their feelings...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Yup, fuck him in the ass with a big black rubber dildo. No way I'm voting for this prick.
Just another reason not to put the Bush family back in power yet again.
Same type of idiocy, same basic hatred of our freedoms.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Re: "Bush says he hasn't seen any indication the bulk collection of phone metadata violated anyone's civil liberties."
Well sure Mr. Bush. If you only look at the effect and not the cause. Pretend the constitution isn't there, or doesn't say what it says, or act like it's out of scope for your comments.
As to the effects, I expect you are also ignoring all the people who say it does violate civil liberties. As well as the history of the republic and the cause of the Founding Fathers. And the history of the FBI and the CIA. And the known security exposures that making copies creates. And the inevitable scope creep that happens when people who don't merit information, have information. And the ego massaging the Three Letter Agencies are likely performing on you. And the reflexive Terr'ist impulse in your party (though wasn't there a time when the Repubs were big on individual rights? Oh right, that doesn't matter now).
With all that said, there's no violation of civil liberties. None at all!
IMHO, it's not a language problem. Their intent was perfectly clear, searching for evidence among your personal effects and papers requires a warrant. So, if they go collect data, and search though it, that clearly requires a warrant.
What's not so clear though is that simply collection data is prohibited. I can see a legal argument that says the collection and storage of data is not prohibited because it's not a search and yields no evidence, but searching the data requires a warrant if you intend to use the results as evidence.
People need to remember that the 4th, 5th and 6th amendments are about the rights of those suspected and accused of crimes. They are about how evidence can and cannot be obtained and how trials must take place. So the 4th amendment is about criminal investigations and how they must proceed.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
It is folly to think that if the NSA can read weakened encryption, enemy states and well-equipped bad guys cannot.
Imagine you are a founding father. The British bad guys come into your house, to do a search of your papers and letters, which was one of the ways they bullied the colonists.
In order to look through your papers, they must first remove them from a drawer, or pick them up from a desk, and then point their eyes at them, and then read them.
See how in order to "search" your written communications, they must first GATHER THEM?
Gathering digital data (bulk NSA data collection) is the first step in searching through it.
"Privacy is an outdated concept". Hmmmm....I think we need a graphic example.
The next time you need to take a shit in public, pull down your pants and squat in full view of everyone nearby. Shit on the ground in front of them. Make sure they see whether you have diarrhea or not. And make sure they get a good look at your genitals too.
What's that? Oh, I see. You want to have privacy while you take a shit.
Are you sure you need that privacy while you take a shit?....it's an outdated concept nowadays. I heard Jeb wants cameras in public toilets, to watch people taking shits.....you know, to make sure they aren't up to any terrorist activities in public places.
If encryption undermined our election system he would be all for it.
If there was any doubt that Jeb (!) was his brother's son, this removes them.
Whenever a politician comes out with a statement like this I would love to see some group go in, hack them, and post everything they have on the web. And I mean everything. Financial statements, e-mail, browser history, text messages, documents, and anything else that they can get their hands on.
Show them that this is what they are asking us to do and see if they are still willing to go through with it.
Anybody with intelligence will not be hanging chads for Jeb now.
Nice going.
everybody on the left who backed Obama or who backs Hillary, THAT is who , on the left, is backing increased government surveillance. Words don't matter. Rhetoric does not matter. "Hope and Change" does not matter. ACTIONS matter
Hillary and Obama actually get celebrated in Hollywood after they jailed a filmmaker to blame HIM and the content of his film for the loss of the embassy in Libya!!!! Name a Republican who has ever jailed a filmmaker to shift blame from an international debacle, and just imagine all the Hollywood freak-outs if it had ever happened. George W Bush as a stooge for the Chamber of Commerce was horrible on this stuff, but Obama and Clinton doubled-down on ALL of it. The GOP establishment (bought-and paid-for by Wall St) will not put forward a candidate who values individual privacy. The Democrat establishment (bought-and-paid-for by the VERY SAME Wall St investors and bankers) will not put forward a candidate who values individual privacy. There's simply too much power to be gained and too many dollars to be gained from snooping on everybody.
Bernie Sanders has much cleaner hands than any of the establishment shills of either party, as does Trump.
Keep right on dreaming. You're asserting that after the Republicans helped LBJ pass the Civil Rights Act (because the Dems lacked the votes in the congress to do it, given how racist guys lake Al Gore Sr were) the outraged racist Democrats of the south punished the Dems by racing into the arms of the GOP????? That's a wonderful left-wing talking point these days, but it's insane and historically inaccurate. The Democrats have ALWAYS been the party that identifies people by race. They were the party of slavery, the party of the Klan, the party of "Jim Crow", the party that kept little black kids out of school and blacks at the back of the bus. When they lost all those fights they switched to owning the blacks by putting them in hosing projects and giving them enough in hand-outs to get their loyalty but not enough so they could break free. EVEN NOW, Democrats allocate tickets to their events with racial quotas.
The Republicans have NEVER, since their founding, favored policies that treated people differently by skin color, even when it hurt politically (like when they oppose "affirmative action"/racial preferences and they get blasted for it by the press) and at this time the only black member of the US Senate is Republican Tim Scott who is VERY popular with conservative Republicans and who got there WITHOUT some race-based political action group.
Simple, libertarians are properly for limited governments, not weak ones. If you want a better answer, ask a better question.
I don't read AC A human right
They were the party opposed to the Democrats in the 1850's
When slavery was the big issue of the day, the Whigs who were completely focused on money and international matters were unwilling to get involved in the debate over a matter of morality. The Republican party was formed by people who were morally opposed to slavery, and the stand-for-nothing-but-money-and-power Whigs went the way of the do-do..... or so it seemed. Over the decades, they surfaced and gradually tried to wrest control of the GOP from those pesky people with morals, but then when the Rottenfeller Republicans finally thought they'd won control along came the Reagan guy [darn!].
The modern theme by both leftists in the Democrat party and Whigs/RINOs in the GOP that the modern Republicans have moved too far right and been taken-over by religious nuts is a joke: It was FOUNDED by those religious folks, and the party has in the post-Reagan years slumped so far left that it is mostly now to the left of where Jimmy Carter (the sitting Democrat President) was in 1980. Jimmy was NOT pro-gay, or pro-abortion, but many modern Republicans are. Jimmy left Reagan a shrunken malfunctioning military, but the modern GOP has helped Obama make it smaller and less-capable than it was under Carter.
There is simply no intellectually-honest way to say that the Republican party of today has moved to the right of where it was in 1984.... it has moved far left and only seems to the right because the modern Democrats are radically-left from where THEY were in 1980. Modern establishment Republicans would not pick Reagan today because they would call him "too far right" (but then many of them, like the Bushes and Romneys, stridently opposed him THEN for that reason). Modern Democrats would TRASH JFK as a "homophobe" and a militarist. John Kennedy would be too conservative for modern Republican establishment idiots.
Trump's job this election is about the same as last Presidential election - he's the opening clown act who's there to kick off a really long circus show, and he's getting the crowd riled up to be excited when the next clown car rolls in before the lion tamers and elephants do their act. He's not the guy on the trapeze, he's not the ringmaster, but he's the opening act. He's a good clown, sold them on the job last time, and they invited him back.
Last election's circus was about telling the Tea Party that they weren't going to get one of their favorites or even anybody from their wing of the party, because none of them were electable, and they were going to have to vote for somebody from the Corporate Party Machine Wing, but their participation was appreciated and the party wanted them to spend a year bashing Democrats before the real candidates had to behave themselves in public. (Unfortunately for them, Romney never quite got the "behaving himself" part down, because he didn't always realize he was in public rather than among friends who'd appreciate remarks about the 47%.) There was really only one other electable candidate, Jon Huntsman, but Romney already had the "Billionaire Mormon Ex-Governor" slot lined up, and he'd shown the party machine that he was happy to play their games, while Huntsman was too independent.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Trump's not the candidate; he's the opening clown act for the circus.
Jeb! not only is showing his support for the spook establishment by coming out against encryption, but he's also lined up with just about all of Dubya's policy cronies, many of whom were his dad's cronies. But he's unfortunately as realistic as anybody. Walker's a stooge for the Koch Boys, and also has a good chance (aargh!) Rubio might be sellable as well. Kasich is currently second-tier, but might have a chance later in the process. Cruz pisses off too many people in the party by being very much his own guy, and not in a sellable "maverick" way. (My perspective on Fiorina is a Silicon Valley local "we saw how she botched things at HP" plus "boy was she an annoying candidate for Senator against Boxer", though while I'm not taking her seriously, the other choices are all pretty sad too; if she's on the ticket it's as VP, probably with Rubio.)
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
"Can anyone who's a member of the GOP *explain* why the party of "Smaller Government" always wants to expand government when it comes to spying on US citizens and expanding the military? Why does it always come down to "cut social programs because we're broke", but "no spending limit for bombs/aircraft carriers"?
Because the first duty of the federal government (and one of the few actually assigned to it by the Constitution) is the defense of the nation. Government by its very nature is corrupt and inefficient, so it's no surprise that the Pentagon is wasteful and inefficient, but we sorta NEED it. Government programs that rob one citizen at gunpoint to get the cash to stuff into another citizen's pocket are NOT in the Constitution. Welfare programs are what charities and voluntary mutual-aid societies (like the Shriners, and Salvation Army) are for, and also things that the states themselves are free to do if they wish. We have to endure some of the waste of the Pentagon, even though we ought to fight to minimize it, but the waste of all the social programs that are not a federal duty in the first place is both optional and stupid.
"And while we're at it, can someone explain why "every life is precious" when it comes to abortion, but then have no problem thowing away lives on useless wars, and expanding the death penalty to include petty theft?"
This is super-easy: INNOCENT LIFE should be protected and NOBODY is more innocent than a baby, whether born or unborn. Useless wars are stupid and indeed wasteful, but wars that eliminate tyrants and free people at least also have the net effect of helping innocent people. Since when has anybody in the US supported the death penalty for petty theft???????
Now YOU can please explain why so many on the Left worship at the altar of abortion, slaughtering the innocent, but then coddle murderers by opposing the death penalty. Why massacre the innocent by the millions, while preserving the most evil elements of society? For that matter, why fight so hard to preserve monkeys from medical research while gleefully chopping-up human children "for research"? This is moral blindness.
Why will they spend every dollar to force an unwed mother to bring her child to birth and then refuse to support it in any way once it's out of her womb?
Um, because no child should be sentenced to death because its mother was irresponsible or because its mother was the victim of rape. And why is it that you think anybody who opposes and act of murder must then be required to support the people who are not murdered??????? Wow. That's just so unbelievably irrational.
And why are these questions NEVER ASKED at a "debate"?
Because most debates in the US are moderated by journalists, 90%+ of whom self-identify as Democrats or Socialists in every poll. Conservative Republican voters and candidates would HAPPILY debate these things. Even the recent Fox debate was moderated by Journalists who were to the left of most Conservative Republicans and THEY were clearly on an establishment-driven mission to eliminate Trump rather than a mission to debate governing philosophies or the role of government, or anything of actual substance.
The GOP needs to keep all the right-wingers busy and angry and giving money and bashing Democrats at their state and local levels and in Congress so they can play the long game, in terms of sustained majorities and control or gridlock of Congress and state-level gerrymandering, and they don't want to lose them in the long time between now and when they pick their real candidate. Trump's job is to keep the troops entertained and get them engaged, insult the Democrats in ways the Party Machine Candidates can pretend were somebody else's fault, and kick off a year-long circus. It might end up like last election, with the Official Candidate getting far in the lead too early in the process and opening his mouth too often, or it might go down to the wire with the convention actually deciding between Bush, Rubio, and Walker, but for now they've got Trump to get everybody back bashing Hillary for as long as possible.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Jeb gets it, Walker gets it, Rubio gets it but has to deal with it a bit more, but the major candidates all know that they have to let the loudmouth right-wingers say all the nasty things that they'll pretend not to have been encouraging, because this is the part of the race for bashing Democrats and raising money and manpower from the angry people (as well as quietly raising money from the rich people.)
This is the part of the game they WANT Trump for, and Huckabee, and Cruz, and let them play off against Carson and Fiorina and Chris Christie and Rand Paul. He's playing to the GOP audience, and only secondarily to the National audience.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
No, like that Trump guy did in 2008. He's the opening clown act, and he'll get out of the way when the elephants and lion-tamers come in, or at least shut up when the cute chick is on the trapeze.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
He's in bed with pretty much all the same advisors his brother was, and many of the same as his father was. He's the smarter brother, but Dubya's the older brother and may have spoiled it for him. The other likely candidates are Walker and Rubio, and just maybe Kasich will make it into the Final Four.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Trump's already proven with his campaign of misogyny and racism that he is the One True Voice of the Republican party.The rest of you never had a chance in the face of his glorious Trump hole. He doesn't even listen to himself, he just opens it and some new Trumpism comes forth, like a unicorn crapping a rainbow. And when that unicorn craps that rainbow, he goes up in the polls another 5 points. Jeb, you and the other also-rans are already completely irrelevant, so please stop trying to out-crazy the guy.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Obvious troll is obvious..at least i hope you are trolling..
"A mind reader? That sounds like sci fi." "Honey, we live on a space ship"
Does he really know what the word encryption: is - I doubt it. Most politicians are dumb as rainwater, when it come to technology. Of course of what I have seen of Jeb Bushes campaigning - he does not know what he is saying or doing most times :-)
Why not just come out and say "We need to put cameras in every home, police on every block, and military checkpoints at every intersection.... to fight terrorism." I'm sure most of the infants sucking on the teats of propagandist media will applaud him, maybe even give him a Nobel peace prize, while the irony of his beliefs go unnoticed; that he is the terrorist and his cabinet would be more of a threat to the world than any CIA-trained militia ever could be. -More irony.
I'm not surprised that out of all of the Republican candidates, only Rand Paul addressed privacy in a believable fashion (in my opinion), but I think Republican promises are too little too late for a jaded population, myself included. Being a long time conservative until G.W. -I've abandoned all hope for a reasonable politician who's best interests are truly in the freedom of Americans.
To paraphrase, Jeb Bush's "optimism" is shitty and the whole thing sucks. Rant over.
So does the 4th amendment.
Does that mean you don't have anything encrypted? I bet you do...
Jeb Bush can spell encryption 10 times out of 10? on his own?
ok. the police will be right over to "collect" everything in your house by photographing it. they promise not to look at it or read it!
Is he also against telephones, radios, computer and the Internet? What if I send an encrypted smoke signal?
Be More, Be Manly, The Manly Geek Ubergeek Extraordinaire Blogger: www.manlygeek.com/blog Podcaster: podcast.man