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.
I don't want to get elected but am doing this because they are making me
Jebby is a a RINO a best and most likely a New World Order statist.
Can you please define what you would consider as a "Republican":
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
Ask those folks in Ashley Madison dump how they feel about 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."
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.
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
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.
I would vote for Donald Trump before voting for Jeb based on this issue.
I would vote for Don before Jeb for a lot of reasons. In fact, of the current Republican slate, I'd pretty much vote for Trump over all of them, because I consider him "mostly harmless" by comparison. I'd like to say I prefer Rand, but Rand has that whole "religiot" angle going that I just can't tolerate.
Sadly enough, as a fiscal conservative (and social liberal), I'd actually call Sanders my candidate of choice so far. Yep - The self-proclaimed socialist shows more fiscal responsibility than all 38 GOPpers running.
And they wonder why people don't show more interest in our elections...
It's amazing to me that the press and other so-called experts on governmental surveillance haven't pointed out that the kind of information released by the Ashley Madison dump is the kind of information that is scooped up by the bulk surveillance of the NSA, or is hacked by foreign government intelligence services.
Can you please define what you would consider as a "Republican":
if you call yourself a republican, you're a republican
if you are a registered republican, you're a republican
it's not like a birthright or a club, it's just a box you check on a form
"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
I propose the slightly stronger statement:
X \in Politician => isNuts(X) = true
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.
you fell for the trick-question.
there isn't a single serious politician in the US who is leftist. that died well over 20 years ago, perhaps even 30+.
we have ultra right and middle right. that's about it.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
What that said, it's pretty hard to get any politician not named Donald to truly speak his mind. Thanks, Gov...
You think Trump is speaking his mind? He's not. He's telling people exactly what they want to hear and they are eating it up. He is tapping into the frustration against the establishment. He tried it with the birther movement the last time but that "controversy" was so ridiculous and contrived that there was no way he could ride it. But now he's found something with much broader appeal.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
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.
http://mic.com/articles/119630...
Considering the growth we had during the late 40's and 50's, that 90% top marginal tax rate certainly didn't hurt then, and in fact, helped to pay down a lot of debt we had from WWII.
What is fiscally irresponsible is bottoming out taxes while exploding the national debt, like Reagan and Bush II did. People like to bring up the whole "balanced budget" thing on occasion, and in a sense i agree with it... but those people that do are being disingenuous at best. We could balance the budget in two years with a simple constitutional amendment that says "we WILL bring in the revenue to pay for ALL of governments expenses, or the rates will automatically be adjusted to do that. Period, no exceptions." The problem we have is a whole generation who are selfish, greedy, anti-American piss-ants who prefer to act like petulant children instead of living up to the social contract of continuing to invest in future generations, and those people have been leeching everything ever generation before them invested since the 1980's.
Then again, by the way you wrote that... leaving out the "top marginal rate" part... i have to assume you either do not understand history, or what Sanders said.... or that you're just being deceptive to get people to agree with you.
Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
Advocating a 90% tax rate is fiscally responsible?
First of all, you need to learn the difference between marginal and average tax rates.
Second - Yes. Not spending more than you make counts as rule #1 of fiscal responsibility. I disapprove of the vast majority of government spending and would far prefer we balance the budget through cuts; but as long as neither the Republicans nor the Democrats can refrain from writing rubber checks, we'd damned well better back them with something other than green ink.
That said - We last saw a top marginal rate of 91% from 1946 through 1963. Y'know, the post-WWII era, the "baby boom", one of the most prosperous eras in US history for the lower and middle classes? I don't normally go for rose-tinted glasses, but tough to see much but pink about that (unless you can't see anything through all the green).
Hmmm. Ok, you go first.
As soon as I make over $1,766,000 per year (the inflation adjusted 90% bracket floor in 1946), yes, I will gladly pay 90% of anything over that.