Slashdot Mirror
Carly Fiorina Says Government Needs a Way To "Work Around" Encryption (dailydot.com)
Patrick O'Neill writes: Carly Fiorina wants the government to be able to "work around" encryption to aid intelligence agencies and law enforcement in their investigations, she said on Monday. The Republican presidential candidate and former HP CEO shifted the focus of her campaign to national security two days before the last Republican debate of 2015. Fiorina is the latest but not the first presidential candidate to weigh in on the encryption debate that has taken on a new life since terrorist attacks in Paris and California.
She is so naive that she thinks the government has no backdoors and ways around encryption?
I'm sure lots of people want a 'work around', but what they want isn't always possible.
This is just a nonsense statement intended to get support from those who don't know better. At least she knows how to play the game.
No change in her technical competence since she ran HP into the ground, I see.
"To any truly impartial person, it would be obvious that I am right."
A workaround for overreaching governments and individuals abusing their power. It's metabullshit because you aren't obfuscating who the data is comming from, where it is going to, or even how often. Supposedly that was all that was important right? The American government couldn't secure their own data, idiocy is rampant. How exactly is compromising all business and personal transactions to intercept a nearly non-existent threat even helping at all, except to perhaps facilitate your own illegal agenda? FFS the day the government actually addresses issues in the order of deaths per year, or even in financial damages per year to the American public is the day hell will freeze over.
The republicans seems to state that the Government is a bunch of bumbling idiots where the free market can outperform it hands down, yet they also expect it able to perform things such as conspiracies where thousands of people are involved. Making a back door that only the government can break. Creating a super virus so advanced that no mortal individual outside the government can't possibly make.
In short any government back door is a back door to the rest of the world. It isn't as much about the government spying on us, but who else, can. What if Snowden decided not to go public with the stuff he learned and decided to use it to profit off of the information? It takes one underpaid/underappreciated rouge employee to mess up any grand security system.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
It's because all people are hypocrites.
Republicans, the right, etc. all clamor for smaller government. Which I happen to whole-heartedly agree with. However, smaller government includes staying out of what substances people put in their bodies, what a woman chooses to do with hers, staying out of the average citizen's email and electronic communications, the list goes on and on. Repubs want to control all of those things, so I can't agree with their position.
Democrats, the left, etc. all clamor for bigger government. Which I don't agree with, for the same reasons listed above. However, Dems would rather dictate what food you can eat, what substances are approved to smoke and which ones are not, what you drive, how you choose to arm and defend yourself and your family, and also want to read the average citizen's email and electronic communications just for different reasons, so I can't agree with their positions, either.
The thing is, you can't have your cake and eat it, too. Both sides are just petulant children who want what THEY want and nothing more. Either we have an overarching nanny-state "security" (theatre) culture, or we have freedom. Freedom means you have the choice to make bad (subjective) choices, meaning women can do what they want, people can eat what they want and smoke what they want and ingest whatever substances they want, can own whatever firearm they want, and not at all the least, freedom from having your communications spied upon unless a warrant has been issued signed by a judge (and not a rubber-stamp federal spy-approval one) and for a limited duration for specific information.
Unfortunately, freedom is scary to the vast majority of people. Those clutching their bibles won't be happy until abortion is punishable by death (ironic?), and those clutching the keys to their Priuses won't be happy until owning a v8-powered automobile, gun or cigarette (ironic?) is punishable by death. So, we will always have people demanding ignorant things like backdoors in encryption and "super viruses" because they want their side to win, and of course their side is perfect and smart and can do anything and will never be used for evil, everyone is the good guy who knows what's best for everyone else and freedom is dead because of spineless jellyfish on both sides of the political spectrum.
My greatest fear is a government that does work.
An effective government is very dangerous, to its citizens. A bickering set talking heads makes sure that the fad idea of the week doesn't just get passed in the next session then we have to live with its consequences.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
The creation of welfare states are the greatest threat to freedom because the actions of one person now affect the pocketbook of another. It's true that in societies, people who make poor decisions have always affected others: if the only blacksmith in town drinks himself to death, where are people going to get their horseshoes? But this is greatly exacerbated in a state full of subsidies and other shared burdens.
Before the welfare state, the actions of one person affected the bare life of another. It's the welfare state that allows people to recover from a sickness, to take time off to pursue some education or to take care of their children. All society is about is sharing the burden and sharing the benefits. If the older generation didn't share their experiences with us (we call this 'education'), we would be damned to reinvent everything again. If your blacksmith couldn't go to a baker to get some bread, he would never have the time to specialize as a blacksmith. I remember reading of some guy who as a project went out to built a toaster all on his own, from the resources he himself took out of Nature, and after 10 years, he still wasn't done yet (I don't know if he is now). It's sharing the burden that allows even mundane objects like a toaster to be manufactured.
Freedom as many libertarians understand it is actually a result of having a society which allows us to share burdens. It's the inherent welfare state that helps your parents while you are a toddler, that keeps you fed while you get an education, that protects you while you sleep and that provides you with support in all the situations you can't support yourself.
A snippet from wikipedia: "Steven Levy, writing in 2015 on the agreement(an HP/iPod supply agreement/cobrand), wrote that "Steve Jobs blithely mugged her and HP's shareholders. By getting Fiorina to adopt the iPod as HP's music player, Jobs had effectively gotten his [iTunes] software installed on millions of computers for free, stifled his main competitor, and gotten a company that prided itself on invention to declare that Apple was a superior inventor. And he lost nothing..."
Its a nice snippet as it encapsulates her well known lack of business skills and lack of strategic competency.
I heard a term used by a lawyer referencing someone similar a while back. It applies here - She is a lightweight dolly bird.
In post Patriot Act America, the library books scan you.
The creation of welfare states are the greatest threat to freedom because the actions of one person now affect the pocketbook of another
And the alternative, where the slightest hiccup in the life of somebody living on the poverty line causes their shit to enter an unrecoverable downward spiral - that doesn't adversely affect our society or economy at all, eh?
But this is greatly exacerbated in a state full of subsidies and other shared burdens.
Christ I am sick of hearing this short-term thinking bullshit. We all share burdens - no way around it. The question is whether you want to acknowledge that reality and try to deal with it sensibly, or pretend it doesn't exist and that you don't live in an interconnected society that benefits from increases in the general quality of everyone's lives. Just because you take the welfare line items out of the tax budget doesn't mean you are not paying for the costs of perpetual poverty and the effects of an ever increasing number of permanently disenfranchised people. You are, in fact, being the smoker in your example - making a selfish, stupid decision to defer positive preventative measures and instead rely on ludicrously expensive and ineffective disaster control.
Me, I prefer to share the burden in the form of proactive support. I, as a person who would like to not be sociopath, consider the term 'shared burden' to be a positive indication of a society recognizing its moral duty to at least try to promote dignity for the least of its people. Are these programs riddled with issues, run by fallible humans and taken advantage of by lazy fucks? You bet. But look who cashes in on the alternative do-nothing approach: predatory banks, prisons, overcharging pharma / insurance companies, etc. (oh gee, and who are same guys putting the screws to the rest of us because of their 'increasing costs'?). And what do we get for the investment in the your approach? Fuckall but more misery.
So no thanks teabaggers, I will happily give $100 today to assist a poor/sick/uneducated person in the hopes that they will improve their life rather than piss it away into the machines of our economy that run on suffering. Maybe that person squanders that assistance, maybe they don't - but I can be damn sure that the alternative is a wasted investment.
Hillary is someone whom the country would be better without, but at least she doesn't score double-irony points with stuff like this:
Only Fiorina could get people laughing so hysterically with so few words. Even Trump has never said anything quite that shocking yet. This is like if Hillary were to sincerely brag about how faithful her husband has been.
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
What, and not immediately turn every discussion into slinging reductionist hyperbolic idiocy at each other? Unthinkable, sir! If I actually have to consider the merits of each argument rather than just looking for the (R) or (D) next to the name, how will I find time to write my ignorant diatribes in comment sections?