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."
That sounds like a threat... "If you make encryption, we won't bother with protecting civil liberties any more."
I don't want to get elected but am doing this because they are making me
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
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.
Ask those folks in Ashley Madison dump how they feel about encryption
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...
"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
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
There are (reportedly) 10,000 govt employees in the Ashley Madison hack that would probably disagree with you, Jeb.
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
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.
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
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
"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
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
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.
Trigger word.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
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.
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?
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.
> 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
When Bin Laudin knocked down the towers he also scared the country so much that the bill of rights is totally, permanently doomed.
By voting for people like Jeb Bush or any other person that uses fearmongering as a justification to dilute and remove constitutional rights, you're directly making Bin Laden's actions even more successful.
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.........