Slashdot Mirror
Hillary Clinton Urges Silicon Valley To 'Disrupt' ISIS
HughPickens.com writes: The NYT reports that Hillary Clinton spoke at the Brookings Institution's annual Saban Forum on Sunday and said that the Islamic State had become "the most effective recruiter in the world" and that the only solution is to engage American technology companies in blocking or taking down militants' websites, videos and encrypted communications. "We need to put the great disrupters at work at disrupting ISIS. We need Silicon Valley not to view government as its adversary. We need to challenge our best minds in the private sector and work with our best minds in the public sector to develop solutions that would both keep us safe and protect our privacy," said Clinton. "We should take the concerns of law enforcement and counterterrorism professionals seriously. They have warned that impenetrable encryption may prevent them from accessing terrorist communications and preventing a future attack. On the other hand we know there are legitimate concerns about government intrusion, network security, and creating new vulnerabilities that bad actors can and would exploit."
Why try to be cute? Just say it.
Thirty four characters live here.
bottom line: i'm done with her. she lies and lies even more to cover up those lies. thought she had a chance. no more.
Maybe y'all should stop bombing civilians over there. It doesn't take much to "radicalize" somebody whose family was killed by American bombs.
Fine. Give ISIS Windows 10 free of charge. Job done. :-)
(I'm not sure about the Geneva Convention implications of this however.)
Surely we can't trust someone who directly profited from the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, basically wrecking our economy.
Just say no to Billary...
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B - D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
Every time a tech company comes out with a new product, the marketing droids refer to it as (yet another) "disruptive technology".
The Internet is a disruptive technology. You could argue the World Wide Web is either part of that same disruptive tech, or you could probably say it is disruptive in its own right. But all the new stuff being built on top of one or both of those things isn't "disruptive" - it's just taking advantage of the disruption that's already well underway.
However back to the matter at hand... Hillary is just once again repeating the mantra "give us back doors in encrypted communications" - she's just trying to phrase it differently. But since I imagine she's aware the tech companies generally employ people who are much smarter than she is, it's apparent the message isn't really for them - it's for the American public at large.
#DeleteChrome
God help us all should that moron get into office.
But when compared against Trump. It's like what options are we left with.
Idiots to the left. Idiots to the right. And no one supporting America's true interest in sight.
We do have a great candidate available who isn't an idiot and supports America's true interests. His name is Bernie. Of course, all the morons on the right don't like him because he believes in "socialism" (though it's really the democratic socialism that Scandinavian and other European countries have, basically what we already have with Social Security and Medicare but on steroids), and many morons on the left don't like him because he's male, not a minority, or not rabidly anti-gun (Gore was rabidly anti-gun: look how that turned out for us).
Her email fiasco already tells us that Hillary Clinton is merely a user of technology, not a developer
And you expect her to know the difference between 'Encryption' and 'Backdoor'??
She's asking how to crack encryption so that only "good guys" can listen in on conversations; she's making it sound like a technical problem when it is a political decision.
"On the other hand we know there are legitimate concerns about government intrusion, network security, and creating new vulnerabilities that bad actors can and would exploit."
You can't have one and not have the other!
"We need Silicon Valley not to view government as its adversary."
You can't brute force the private sector into spending money on compliance and weakening their products in the global market (Chinese contractors would LOVE to buy middleware with NSA backdoors!), and be "friends".
-----------
And more generally, the war on "unbreakable encryption" is just such an unbelievably stupid concept. It's an OBVIOUS power grab for intelligence agencies, and it takes nothing more than common sense to see that you can't ban encryption and mandate backdoors for everything. Encryption has been around for thousands of years and, barring spooky quantum computing tech, open source projects, personal projects, and most importantly *products from countries that don't mandate backdoors* will always be widely available to those who seek encrypted communication. If someone really cares about encryption, they'll still be able to find a solution. It's as dumb as spending years in court trying to block The Pirate Bay, and then WHOOPS they just change the extension.
More importantly, the recent terrorist attacks have been planned by UNENCRYPTED communication. We're talking facebook posts and text messaging!!! I mean *come on*, it's such an obvious power grab that won't make us any safer, like the TSA. It makes me sick to see these mouthpieces for power hungry organizations spout this asinine rhetoric and use these attacks to further their own agendas (like 9/11 was used to invade Iraq). It needs to stop, and the media needs to call them out. At least the major tech companies are pushing back against this. Then again, it's expected, they have billions of dollars of market value hinging on it, and risk being forced to be uncompetitive in broad swaths of security sectors due to these idiotic policies.
The whole thing is a can of worms. It's not like only America is going to get backdoors, that's just an unrealistic elitist view. Hackers get backdoors, corporations get backdoors which will inevitably be abused for profit as personnel changes over time, other intelligence agencies get backdoors, other countries will follow suit and get backdoors (China/Russia/you name it... Skype Saudi Arabia edition! Use it or be banned from the market in our country!) This entire line of policy, frankly, leads to shit, and Solicon Valley is right to consider these people their enemies.
Keep on living in a free world while terrorists claw feebly at our liberty.
Dont join in on the bigotry. Thats what they want. They want us to hate them as much as they hate us. They want us to attack them like they attack us. They want all the decisions of the world decided by violence.
Dont give them what they want.
The code of any major OS is so insecure that the NSA should have no problem hacking into them, and figuring out what the terrorists want. Good job Silicon Valley! Way to disrupt!
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
No, she called for all the companies to backdoor their encryption. If anyone steps up, then the government praises them and pats them on the head and gives them contracts and starves the competition. If no one steps up then they start passing laws to ban encryption. "I tried to talk with them rationally, but they kept on allowing math to happen, leaving me no choice but to bring out my men with guns!"
This is dog whistle for "do what I say or else". Obviously this means Hillary is a bad choice for president, but she's smugly aware that there's no good choice.
Under Bill, they almost pushed through clipper / capstone, backdoored encryption where the government gets a master key and you get a slave key. This is more of the same.
None of this would be justified if all the terrorist attacks recently had been coordinated over encrypted messages using mainstream products. But instead, none of it was- it was all plain text or face to face. This is all about making it so that encryption is harder to get- the idea that ios 8+ and new androids will be encrypted in place by default is making them panic.
She just asked Silicon Valley to be a better, more practical ISIS to usurp the ISIS business model. She wants Silicon valley to deliver a better tool that more potential ISIS members will want to use to more effectively do what ISIS members do.
She just asked Silicon Valley to destroy America and its allies.
This is what happens when politicians and marketing people collide. But hey the sound bite registered well with Joe Sixpack.
You can't prove the Quran wrong; that's completely ridiculous. It's not a scientific text, it's a history book along with some mystical mumbo-jumbo and a bunch of philosophy. The mystical crap can't be disproven unless you can build a time machine, and you can't "disprove" a philosophy. The only thing you can do is try to convince people it's a bad philosophy. But philosophies basically are by-products of cultures and their ethoses, and you can't just force change on a culture. The only thing you can do is separate yourself from a culture you find distasteful.
I think there is something else you can do. There are over 1 billion muslims. I'm not sure what percentage are "extremists" but only a small percentage are "violent extremists". As I'm more familiar with the christian faith, I'm going to talk about it but I think the same basic premise probably applies. Most christians are not extremists. Most "christian extremists" do things like build churches in third world countries and/or pray in front of abortion clinics. A very small percentage of christian extremists end up as violent extremists that bomb abortion clinics, etc... The same argument can be made for "enviromental extremists", "political extremists", etc... As there are a lot more extremists than violent extremists, what causes one to become a violent extremist? I'm not sure it's that the violent extremists are "more extreme". Many non-violent extremists are willing to sacrifice their own livelihood and sometimes even lives in pursuit of their pet cause but very few are willing to harm other people (especially innocent people). We need to figure out what makes a person cross over where they are willing to blow up a whaling ship, attempt to assassinate the president, etc... If we can figure that out and find a way to prevent people from crossing over then we would be alot closer to solving all the random shootings, etc... that are happening around the world.
If you want something in Congress, you have to give concessions first. I say the intelligence community should give concessions before anyone helps them. Particularly, bolstering FISC with an agency that has the clearance and authority to investigate cases and programs of intelligence agencies, and the teeth to publicly expose and prosecute certain projects/actions and those who authorized them. Which projects you ask? The agency can refer one to a branch of FISC, who can hold mock trials for constitutionality, with the agency giving their case that it is unconstitutional or unlawful. If FISC is not unanimous that the project or action is lawful and constitutional, then the project is immediately put on hold pending the case being escalated to SCOTUS.
Furthermore, permanent gag orders related to national security letters and orders need to be replaced with ones that quickly expire. The no-fly list and terrorist watchlist need to be purged and reworked, with a vetting process for removal no more difficult than passing a classified information clearance background check. Policy and law should disallow mandated (or even voluntary cooperation a la PRISM) software backdoors. The agency should inspect domestic internet backbones and switching points to ensure the domestic intelligence community is not tapping them physically. Intel swapping to gain domestic data (e.g. Five Eyes) should be made illegal.
Then, and only then, should we give one fuck about what the intelligence community wants.
Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
Creating a widespread system of censorship is not the right approach:
1) It violates the principles the United States was founded on.
2) Suppressing the free flow of information deprives people of the liberty to make their own informed decisions.
3) When other opinions are squelched, the communication channel becomes a propaganda channel and loses all credibility.
4) This infrastructure will be abused. Now, ISIS. Next, common criminals. Eventually, dissidents.
bottom line: i'm done with her. she lies and lies even more to cover up those lies. thought she had a chance. no more.
Curiously, she seems to be polling higher than the lead republican candidate (Trump).
Every time she speaks, she mentions how "there should be a tax deduction for $x", where $x is tailored to the audience. There should be a deduction for college tuition, a deduction for caring for elderly parents, an individual deduction for health care costs, and so on.
It would appear she's "buying" votes with tax incentives.
Of course, these are just campaign promises, and she's going to pay for it by raising taxes on the rich. Go figure.
but she is not unique. It is a matter of logical necessity that *all* politicians lie.
First off, the job is most attractive to sociopaths, so liars are already over-represented in the group of candidates.
Second, the liars have an advantage over the honest candidates (the precious few) when campaigning, since the liars can promise that which they know to be impossible, or that which they have no intention of delivering. The liars can also produce stronger attack-ads to discredit their rivals, and can brazenly deny the ones produced against them even if they are true. Also, the liars have no problems forming alliances with special-interest groups who's interests run counter to the voter's agenda, and receiving more financial backing than the honest ones can. So, in general, the liars win.
Third, once in office, the only means of furthering a political agenda is to cooperate with other politicians and special interest groups. The system is designed to make it impossible to operate alone. So, those who are willing to compromise on their principles will have far more political allies. Those who are willing to lie as easily as breathe will have the most political allies, and will absolutely crush any politician that does not do the same.
So, eventually, the honest ones get shut down and shut out, leaving only the liars (and the *best* liars, at that) behind.
They all lie. They always will. Every damn one of them.
God help us all should that moron get into office.
But when compared against Trump. It's like what options are we left with.
Idiots to the left. Idiots to the right. And no one supporting America's true interest in sight.
Don't tell me what he *is*, tell me what he *did*. Tell me what he *said*.
Anyone can case aspersions on a candidate(*).
Here's an example of something Trump actually *did*.
At the first [R] debate everyone was falling over themselves to pledge not to run as an independent... except Trump. He forced the GOP to make a deal with him, and knowing him he probably got something out of the deal.
That's a level of political savvy that we don't normally see in America. If he can bring that expertise to the white house, then we might start getting better trade deals and better laws. He's said he wants to make America great again.
All of Trump's controversial statements have put him front-and-center in the minds of Americans for the last 3 months. He's had more name recognition than all the other candidates put together, including Hillary.
I can name several things Donald has said in the last 3 months, none of which are without merit or irrational.
You may disagree whole heartedly, but you can't claim that any of them is irrational or without merit. Most of the controversy has been puffed up by the media by using sentence fragments taken without context.
In the last three months, what has Hillary said?
(*) I'm a fan of Trump, and would welcome informed debate about the candidates. Unfortunately, most people here can't rub two words together to spark a rational argument. Anyone is welcome to take that as a challenge, if you feel up to it.
Okay, we wake up, rise up and throw all the rascals out ... then WHAT??
What do we replace them with?
The same ol' shit?
It isn't that I am a cynic, but I've seen enough of the bullshit from inside the beltway to become extremely wary of the politicians
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
How about we do it more directly and stop buy oil from those Saudis that are funding ISIS/Daash and those oil companies that are buying oil from ISIS/Daash.
Blocking a few web pages isn't going to do anywhere near as much in comparison. They need funds more than they need recruits.
Stop it. You're gonna make me cry.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
So? Who cares?
What's the worst that they can do to us? Or to China? Or to Russia? They're a third-string wannabe that is getting all the media hype because FEAR SELLS.
And it is easy for politicians to look tough by calling for more military action against them.
When that fascist cunt says "we need to put (anyone) to work to (do something)", she's exposing her belief that other people are hers to command. Fuck that noise.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
If she shuts up, she'll get elected. I cling to the hope that she'll keep spewing this kind of bullshit until even her starry-eyed SJW minions start to realize that she's evil.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Clowns to the left and jokers to the right sounds like a succinct summary of politics in every English speaking country.
Hedy Lamarr -- Frequency hopping and spread spectrum
Agnes Meyer Driscoll -- developed the "Communications Machine" or "CM", the standard cypher machine used by the U.S. Navy for a time; she also broke JN-25, the post Perl Harbor Japanese fleet operational code.
Elizebeth Friedman -- sometimes credited as the first female American codebreaker -- broke a Mandarin Chinese code used in the opium trade, as well as a number of codes used by bootleggers in the prohibition era, and went on to design some of the security measuers still in place at the IMF (International Monetary Fund).
Maureen Baginski -- Signals Intelligence Director during the 2011 attacks on the U.S.; worked at the NSA
Mary "Polly" Budenbach -- directed the NSA's "Technical Consultants organization.
Wilma Davis -- mathematician who broke Italian diplomatic codes in the 1930's, Japanese Army code messages in WWII, worked on the Chinese team for a while, and then moved on to "Venoa", a covert group tasked with breaking Soviet messages.
Minnie Kenny -- Directed the National Cryptologic School for the DoD and NSA; if you think the fact of her genetalia is significant (you shouldn't), you will also be surprised that she was black.
Ann Caracristi -- one of the people responsible for applying the (then new) computational technology to signals intelligence within the NSA; established the first laboratory for doing so.
Genevieve Grotjan Feinstein -- worked with the SIS (Signal Intelligence Service) as a cryptanalyst reading Japanese diplomatic messages; make the breakthrough that resulted in the creation of an analog computer to read the Japanese "Purple" code.
Joan Daemen -- Rijndael
Shafi Goldwasser -- zero knowledge proofs used in asymmetric key algorithms ...
That's doing about 5 minutes worth of looking, and omitting about half of what I found.
John Stewart did a frightening but very insightful sketch drawing direct comparisons between the American Tea Party and the Taliban. It was funny and chilling at the same time.
Not at all. Why should I find the rule of law, reduction of the extent and power of the US federal government, or responsible fiscal policy to be something to fear? This reminds me of Vox Day's three rules, behavior exhibited by someone incapable of understanding certain contrary beliefs or viewpoints and imbued with a certain passive aggressive behavior:
1) Always lie.
2) Always double down.
3) Always project.
We see all three behaviors exhibited here. Core beliefs of the Tea Party movement have long been advertised and it is well known that there are non-religious members. So why not only lie that the Tea Party is only about religious beliefs and then double down by comparing the resulting Tea Party strawman to the Taliban with a woodenly delivered list of negative attributes that are to some degree shared by the not particularly self-aware, Stewart?
These are immature behaviors of someone who lacks wisdom not something to respect.
There are lots of people of all sorts of beliefs and ideologies who are concerned about government overreach, such as NSA spying, extending globally the stranglehold of excessive IP protection, and feeling people up at US airports. At some point, if you aren't a complete fool, you have to realize that the religious aren't your enemies, they are your neighbors, your friends and relatives, and your natural political allies on some really important issues.
The Tea Party is not a reenactment of the Handmaiden's Tale. It's in response to some serious problems that threaten the future of the US. I believe we should wonder why so many people are working so hard to discredit them on such flimsy pretexts.
They go to 3rd-world countries in Africa and build churches and then teach people how "evil" gay people are, and encourage them to pass laws legalizing the murder of gay people.
The people in Africa don't need westerners telling them how 'evil' gay people are. They have long cultural traditions of exterminating the gays amongst them. The idea that outside westerners are the catalyst for gay-hatred in the 3rd World is ludicrous. If anything, missionaries from the West improve the situation regarding homophobia.
The best thing that could come from Bernie becoming president would be the huge reduction in the power of the Executive that would immediately come into being.
We really, really, need to clip the wings of the Executive in the US, and restore the balance of power. Bernie in the Oval Office would insure that very quickly.
FWIW, I think Joan Daemen might object to your classification of him as a famous woman (unless you were going for the minority designation with him as someone from Belgium).
I'm so glad you can make some argument based on principle, and show by equivalence that you could, in theory, have a problem with violent Christian extremists, violet environmental extremists, and so on down the list. But why don't you go by something like "body count" and figure out which of these things is actually a real problem?
One thing that ticks me off in political debates goes like this:
Person A: George Bush sucks, because X.
Person B: I disagree, because Al Gore sucks, because Y.
Two things wrong with this: Obviously, Person B isn't addressing the question. And more importantly, if you replace "Al Gore" with "John Kerry", you now see the problem- not only is the issue not being addressed, but now the argument is only even understandable if you realize who is running AGAINST someone. If someone claims Hillary Clinton has shitty policies, and your first impression is to go look to see who the Republican frontrunner is so you can formulate an attack against them, you're so far from rational debate that you'll need to pray to the wind gods to ever see those fair lands again.
The mirror shows up here: "The problem with violent Islam is X" -> "Oh, well, in theory, any religion can be violent, and in practice, others have been. "
Don't reframe. If a billion peasants were screaming Deus Vult and stabbing Muslims, then your equivalence argument might have some weight- instead it's just a worthless apologetic so you can reframe it to a general attack on religions, or people who believe strongly in something. LOOK AROUND YOU
Which is quite illogical, people who are working hard instead of holding their hand out and yelling "gimme!" sure are a very tiny minority today.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
This is easy, do I get anything for it?
Step One: Stop fucking supporting them.
There are good hints that Washington or Langley or Fort Meade or someone else high up in the US is directly or indirectly supporting ISIS. Possibly as a part of some geopolitical games like "let's remove Assad from power and seize his oil" or some such fucked-up shit.
Step Two: Stop fucking supporting their allies.
We know the list - Saudi Arabia, Turkey, various so-called Syrian rebel groups who ally with whoever pays them the most or gave them the most recent blowjob or whatever. Possibly Israeal though that are rumours I'm not sure about. Point is that if if you are fighting them with the one hand, and helping those who help them on the other, you shouldn't be surprised. Turkey is basically backstabbing the anti-ISIS coalition at multiple opportunities, because they don't like the Kurds and have their own plans for the area. Also, Putin is not the first to point out that most of the oil trade ISIS runs despite international embargo is going through Turkey. Saudia Arabia has been such an open supporter of islamic terrorism and jihad philosophy (remember 9/11 and where most of the hijackers were from?) that their oil and strategic alliance with the US is the only reason they've not been invaded long ago.
Step Three: Stop fucking "using the opportunity"
If you want to be serious about fighting ISIS, you need to stop seing them as a good opportunity, a nice pretext, a useful thing to have so you can push through your mass surveilance and pseudo homeland security bullshit.
Step Four: Stop fucking working on the next ISIS
All this messing with other peoples religions and internal politics got us where we are today. Al Qaida came out of the US misguided interaction with the Taliban predecessors in Afghanistan. ISIS is a direct result of the Iraq invasion and Saudi support of Wahabism.
If we bomb ISIS into oblivion but continue to play the same game, we will get the same result, again. And if we extrapolate the trend, the next one will be even more ugly. ISIS is not just a terror state, it's also a mindset, and removing it from the map won't stop it. It's not just in Syria, but over half of Africa as well, for example.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
The reason we are no longer allowed to carry large volumes of liquids onto planes is because they caught the terrorist plot before it could be used
The 'terrorist plot' involved mixing nitroglycerine in the plane toilet. The technique that they were planning on using needs several hours on a steady workbench to be used. If, by some miracle, they'd managed to stay in the toilet for a couple of hours without anyone noticing, then the first bit of turbulence or vibration in the airframe would have resulted in an explosion just large enough to take off the hands (and, given how small aeroplane toilets are, probably more delicate parts) of the terrorists, but had no other effect.
In other words, stopping the 'plot' cost us a propaganda victory of being able to say 'Al Quaeda, the idiots who blew themselves up in a toilet last year' in every story related to them. It's pretty hard to spread terror when you're a laughing stock.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News