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.
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."
why she was such a shitty tech CEO.
In Soviet Russia, government needs a way to work around Carly Fiona!
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
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.
All those secret zero day attacks available -- they probably have so many they can keep ahead of the curve, not to mention built in back doors to Windows.
The article does not mention much other than a wistful desire of some way to pierce...no, I don't wanna click to see some extremely uncomfortable family photos...
Anyway, it seemed like a magical desire to crack rather than forcing weak enc...oh, you wouldn't beliege the violent crimes some Hollywood stars have committed...is that ScarJo in an arrest photo? (Click) hehehe Tim the Tool Man Taylor...
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
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 is patented, here it is https://www.google.co.uk/paten... differential workfactor encryption, as used in the International version of IBM Lotus Notes until the US government decided not to classify encryption as heavy munitions. It gives the US government 40 bits of encryption to crack and everyone else gets 128 bits. (and you can vary the assisted evesdropper and workfactors to taste). As far as I am aware they never once gave a single shit about it whilst they had it, and never wanted other products to implement it.
We've just had GCHQ release their graph analysis software into the public domain. It's basically that, graph analysis, a database that can be constantly added to and performs data analysis. So what they're talking about is clearly bulk data mining, the so called 'power of big data' to spot terrorists and criminals.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/12/14/brit_spookhaus_gchq_creates_github_repo_offers_graph_database/
Mass surveillance to collect the data then graph analysis to analyse it. Not targetted investigations. You need the bulk data to crunch the numbers to see what's abnormal. And for that, you need to spy on everyone all the time, and encryption prevents that.
Of course it just generates masses of false positives and meanwhile the terrorists... well they just do their thing without causing any flags. Paris attackers used SMS with NO encryption and sailed straight past France's notorious mass surveillance.
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20151118/08474732854/after-endless-demonization-encryption-police-find-paris-attackers-coordinated-via-unencrypted-sms.shtml ///////////
And handily, you also spy on political campaigners, politicians, parliaments, journalists, governments, competing companies, defense contractors, etc etc.
Which is far more valuable. AND IS THE WHOLE POINT.
So UK Parliament, as an example, uses Microsoft Cloud. Microsoft assisted in bypassing encryption for the PRISM surveillance. PRISM forms a large part of Obama's morning brief. So basically now private internal UK Parliamentary documents and memos are read by US intelligence and used to brief the US President and Diplomats to ensure the debates produce UK laws the US wants.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/11/microsoft-nsa-collaboration-user-data
This decision was made *after* Snowden. They knew full well the US had a backdoor into Microsoft, and you lot in GCHQ, fuck you, you fucking traitors, anyone of you could have put end to end encryption into Parliaments communications. You know which encryption schemes NSA has broken, your duty is to UK, not the military leadership chain up through NATO. Get off your Stasi asses and secure Parliaments comms AS PER YOUR DUTY.
http://www.computerweekly.com/news/2240230372/Hague-reassures-MPs-on-Office-365-data-storage-as-Microsoft-ordered-to-hand-over-email-data ////////////
And now we know why Hewlett Packard Servers had backdoors.
http://www.h-online.com/security/news/item/New-backdoor-in-HP-server-products-1916506.html
"Computer manufacturer HP has admitted that its StoreVirtual servers also contain an undocumented backdoor. "
This was the one that you could log in remotely and add extra users to the file system with full privileges, all with one backdoor account password, Al Qaeda uses HP??? No? But a lot of major corporations with useful industrial secrets do, and a lot of governmental organizations do, and a lot of democratic and legal structures do.
As a European, I always wonder how these politicians want to enforce these schemes. Will it be impossible to import strong encryption into US? But how? I still have a little closed-source shareware program with strong encryption online. So what happens if a US citizen purchases it via my web shop? Will this person be put into prison? Or will I somehow magically commit a crime in in the US even though I live elsewhere and have never been there, and will be extradited to the US? In the latter case, how should I prevent that US citizens buy my program? IP-based geolocation that is easy to fool?
Has any of these persons who suggest "workarounds" and backdoors ever made any concrete suggestions how to handle this?
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.
I don't know that they're fundamentally different on wanting to bypass encryption, but I do think that people who appear to believe:
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
tend to be Republicans. Actually they may identify as Libertarians, but probably not as Democrats who traditionally want to expand government reach to help some societal group. Not saying they even CAN help, but that's the reasoning. Of course, the politics surrounding fear of extremists tends to blur the lines quite hard. I think I'm in more danger of drowning in a bathtub that dying in a terrorist action but essentially no one worries about the death trap lurking in every bathroom.
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.
I just read a great essay (PDF format) by Phillip Rogaway which strongly argues exactly that we need to develop new kinds of cryptography which are aimed squarely at making mass surveillance impossible. Once mass surveillance has been shut down completely, then maybe we can talk about ways for law enforcement to "work around" encryption in very limited and controlled ways[1]. But as long as mass surveillance is feasible, this is a complete non-starter, because any mechanism for bypassing cryptographic security will be used to increase the penetration of mass surveillance. And at this point I don't think we can settle for purely political means of shutting down mass surveillance. Political restrictions on surveillance are necessary, but not sufficient. We also need technology that makes it difficult and expensive, because if it's cheap and easy it can always be done on the sly.
[1] Once mass surveillance is out of the way, then we can talk about "workarounds". But it's crucial that the workarounds not compromise the security of the result. At present, I don't think we have any cryptographic technology that enables controlled, limited access without compromising security in normal operation. Further, I don't think any such technology is possible. But until mass surveillance is shut down we can't even discuss it.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
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.
Apparently Hillary thinks the same yet no Slashdot story on it.
Hillary Clinton: Stop helping terrorists, Silicon Valley
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2...
It's amazing what people will want to happen to others, as long as it is not applied to them. For example, "Join the Tea Party Fund Raising Event to help the Homeless." Where has one seen this; ever.
I mean I guess I can imagine Carly Fiorina, as a mere ex-CEO of one of the largest technology companies in the world, might not have any idea how, like, technology actually works. But this whole conversation is so stupid.
What are these people anticipating? First of all they need to legislate that all crypto software has to have a back door. Leaving aside the security implications of that (which are immense), it means that any company that wants to make and sell crypto in the US will need to change their product lines.
Then to actually make this effective, they'd need to legislate that any company that wants to use crypto within the US must use software that meets this requirement. Without that, then any company that wants actual security will just be buying products (that actually are secure) from overseas and using them in the US.
I don't even know what would happen with people currently using non-crippled open source crypto. Would they be expected to pull it out and replace it with a government approved commercial solution? Would someone create a fork of the open source products that had some back door?
To me every comment made by these clowns just demonstrates a complete lack of awareness about how software works, what open source is, and how tech people think.
Good luck, USA. You're going to need it.
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.
Such as...
Ms Fiorina,
While I can appreciate that your intentions behind this proposal may be driven by a sincere belief that such measures would be in the best interests of society, they fail to account for a single fundamental problem - that if the government, or law enforcement, ever has any foolproof way to work around any encryption, then so will the bad guys, who can then use it to eavesdrop on other people's communications. The problem with this is that of course, you are proposing sacrificing absolutely everyone's privacy, and exposing them indefensibly to anyone who might try to harm them by abusing their personal information. The government and law enforcement cannot be everywhere at once, and completely innocent people will be harmed by this proposal if it should pass. I can completely understand the imperative feeling that something might need to be done in this arena, but this is not the solution.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
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
Exactly this. The Republicans will advocate for small government one second ("Get government out of our lives") and the next second call for a huge, over-reaching government to pry into all aspects of our lives in order to root out the terrorists that apparently hide behind every couch in America.
This isn't to say that the Democrats are any better, but at least they are honest about calling for big government.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
I'm beginning to think that governments are like users that tech support encounters.
The completely ineffective ones can do harm but usually wind up keeping themselves from doing too much harm.
The partly effective ones (the ones who think they know it all but don't) do a lot of damage as they overestimate their effectiveness and wind up trashing everything.
The completely effective ones don't do any harm but are also so rare as to be nonexistent.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Who could have guessed?
Watch this Heartland Institute video
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?
Those aren't "welfare" items but rather items of civilized society.
I would argue that a society with 0 social assistance programs is not a very civilized society. I think you underestimate the amount of order and civility of society that stems in/directly from people being able to get help sometimes when they need it and not go down in flames because of a single adverse event in their lives. That is the whole problem with this point of view: the societal benefits of welfare are often 2+ degrees of separation from the investment, so you assume they do not exist and just whine that you had to pay some tax money and got nothing for it in immediate returns. If you treat it like a transaction where you expect to get an instant return of 10 units of quality of life per $100 of tax money then you are oversimplifying, and I'm not surprised you don't see the value. It is, nonetheless valuable.
No wonder she ran HP into the ground.
Churches are not church goers.
http://www.churchlawandtax.com...
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
Next time don't call someone full of shit with out making sure you are right.
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
Only if you count donations to churches, the vast majority of which ends up getting returned to the donors in the form of member services.
If I pay a psychologist for marriage counselling, no one considers it charity. If you pay a minister's salary for it, it does.
If I pay to join a country club to attend social gatherings, no one considers it charity. If you pay for a church building to host social gatherings, it does.
etc.
If you look at money spent on actual public philanthropy efforts (which for most churches is a tiny fraction of their budget), liberals donate far more than conservatives.
Have heard this asserted before, but never really bothered looking it up. Had assumed tithes would be a datapoint in study, but nobody seems to mention it (even in my links). http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/pa... http://news.rice.edu/2012/05/3... https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.do... Looks like there's no difference between the two groups (generally).