Slashdot Mirror
Clinton Hints At Tech Industry Compromise Over Encryption (huffingtonpost.co.uk)
An anonymous reader writes: At the Democratic presidential debate last night, Marques Brownlee asked the candidates a pointed question about whether the government should require tech companies to implement backdoors in their encryption, and how we should balance privacy with security. The responses were not ideal for those who recognize the problems with backdoors. Martin O'Malley said the government should have to get a warrant, but skirted the rest of the issue. Bernie Sanders said government must "have Silicon Valley help us" to discover information transmitted across the internet by ISIS and other terrorist organizations. He thinks we can do that without violating privacy, but didn't say how. But the most interesting comment came from Hillary Clinton. After mentioning that Obama Administration officials had "started the conversation" with tech companies on the encryption issue, one of the moderators noted that the government "got nowhere" with its requests. Clinton replied, "That is not what I've heard. Let me leave it at that." The implications of that small comment are troubling.
There should be zero back doors, ever. The government has ways to get information. In any event, want access to a mobile phone would likely be after the fact. And, if the government suspects someone, they have ways of listening in without compromising everyone. This kind of thing should be targeted. For suspected terrorists, a chair and a rubber hose works well.
What the government wants, the government gets. Resistance is... Inadvisable. We should all be mindful of this.
Wow, I wonder what Slashdot's opinion of this will be.
You're handing your data over to the government.
The biggest problem with backdoors is not that they weaken encryption, although that's terrible. The biggest problem is that even with a warrant government shouldn't even know this stuff. ISIS or Daesh or whatever the heck they called it never endangered me. Never has, never will. But "my" government endangers me every day by getting involved in these situations and by making them worse. And now, conveniently, the fix for their screwups, according to them, is for me to sacrifice my liberty and weaken my technology.
I'd say "no thanks," but I don't get a choice. So instead I'm like the guy at a traffic stop having my car searched by an officer without probable cause. I won't resist you doing this to me, but I do not consent.
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
By requiring backdoors, you hurt your economy. Because nobody, not even US companies, and you may not even dream about foreign companies, will host any kind of content willingly in a country where any country on this planet has access to their secrets.
Yes, I wrote any country. Not just the US. Because one thing is certain: These keys are valuable. Valuable enough that it will be no issue to find someone (read: governments or corporations) willing to pay big sums to get the keys and people weak enough to take the offer.
There is no such thing as a "US government only" backdoor. Never has been, never will be. Require it and watch your IT industry falter.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
"Tech Industry Compromise"? Is that some sort of euphemism for the tech industry capitulating to a vicious threat from the government?
Did anyone really think the discussion would be something other than:
Government: "Give us a backdoor or we will audit and regulate you into oblivion, not to mention issue endless National Security Letters"
Tech CEOs: "Umm, ok... Just don't make it public"
It's a sad day when the candidates running for president are traitors.
Backdoors can be used by others. Not just 'nice people'.
The whole entirety of viruses and malware show that.
ISIS is a minor threat to my family. Viruses and malware present an everyday threat to my family and their finances.
H. Clinton: "Google, Facebook and Apple are lying to you about your "enhanced privacy". Again. And I like it!".
839*929
Clinton replied, "That is not what I've heard. Let me leave it at that."
Lets see Mrs. Clinton is not currently serving in privileged to information government role. These are conversations that would have taken place after she left office. So some how she is being fed information she can't or won't share with the rest of us. Yet we are supposed to trust her and vote for her. Screw that. She is the ultimate insider. People always accused the GOP of solving things in the back room while the old men smoke cigars. Maybe there is truth in that maybe not. What is clear is that HRC is very much a part of that old boys club, no matter what she has between her legs.
She can't be trusted, full stop. A vote for Hillary is a vote against your interests because the only interests Hillary has is in what is good for her.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
What I don't understand is how none of these politicians who want backdoors into all encryption fail to understand that it would be just as easy for IS or Al-Qaeda or any other group that considers themselves enemies of the United States (North Korea, Iran, etc) to find and use the same backdoors against them. Sure, the government would likely continue using encryption themselves, but what's to stop IS from finding the backdoor and exploiting it to hack into the phones of foreign journalists or contractors? When (not if) IS or another group find their own way into that backdoor, they'll have essentially obtained a way of finding foreigners to behead for propaganda purposes, or to hold hostage for money in the case of Al-Qaeda or Iran, complete with real-time GPS tracking data.
Then vote for Lessig.
He's the one that wants government reform anyway.
And no, it's not throwing away your vote.
You are only throwing away your vote (and freedoms) if you vote for Hillary or Trump.
For those who don't understand why a walled garden is bad, here is one of the reasons.
If you owned root on your device, you could encrypt it yourself.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
from an IT and telecommunications perspective it's nothing but network of nodes where the information can be intercepted
the question is not, "Do we want a network inaccessible to criminal or military investigators/spies?"
that's a good question, but it is a moot point...the data *is* accessable by *someone*
how many here on /. really host their own email server in a faraday cage with tor, proxies, etc for all IP traffic with all devices individually encrypted using all the best linux-based secure software?
break one link in the chain and it's done...our digital communications are not secure
now, there is a difference when it comes to a personal device...I don't think a court can force someone to, say, give a password to unlock an iphone...but if the court has proper reason to think it is needed, then I think apple should help the government unlock it
that's different than digital communications
either way it is encrypted
Thank you Dave Raggett
Why bother with data mining the entire Internet, when the terrorists can just use unencrypted Twitter again, like last time? This "debate" has nothing to do with keeping us safe. It's about keeping them safe from us.
The rest of the world does not like eating turds, they are not going to use US software if its embedded in spyware if they can help it, they are probably looking for alternatives right now, i very much doubt these laws will do much for your economy.
There will always be someone somewhere willing to offer that product or equivalent without the shoot-yourself-in-the-foot feature, you are actively preventing US software companies from making a desirable competing product
The inevitable ending is that US made software will quickly lose presence in the market as everyone rushes for the programs that do not happily leave a door open for spreading pictures if their junks all over the net.
One thing I have yet to see any US candidate address is just who owns this back door and who acts as gatekeeper? Is it supposed to be US government only? Does North Korea get to have a peep under the covers? If not, why not? What do the candidates think about Russia requiring its own back door? How about Syria?
I doubt the scope they are thinking about extends much beyond the US, so why does the US get to think it has a right to my private data as an EU citizen? Because I might potentially, possible, maybe be a terrorist? Thats not good enough.
Also, how are these candidates proposing to make the terrorists use the backdoored encryption, rather than generally known and accepted as secure off the shelf libraries and vb.net UI front ends?
The elephant in the room, the thing that no one is talking about, is that there's a right way to do this.
If you have someone you suspect, you can peek into their system specifically using targetted means. Execute a "sneak and peek" search warrant and install a keylogger, for instance. Bug their house, tap their phone, put a tail on them, and so on.
All of these measures are effective, but they require warrants and reasonable evidence.
Also, the danger from terrorists is vanishingly small, compared to a lot of other dangers in daily life. Focusing on the backdoors is simply not warranted from the amount of danger that ISIS presents in this country.
Not supporting Clinton is literally Patriarchial rape. By supporting Sanders, you are basically supporting Trump and the continued oppression and systemic harassment of wymen online. Stop asking questions about internet survellance. President Clinton needs these powers to protect women from MRAs like you.
"Literally Patriarchal rape"?
That's fucking hilarious as a claim to support Hillary!
Wouldn't supporting Clinton be supporting real world Clintonian Rape?
Thus supporting an actual rapist since the woman must be believed?
You know, LITERALLY.
It's a sad day when the candidates running for president are traitors.
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity or ignorance. Being a "traitor" implies intent, this is far more likely to be ignorance of a technical issue.
I'm surprised so many slashdotters expected these people to understand the technical issues.
Hillary Clinton's background might have discussed some encryption details because of some of her security scandals. Carly Fiorina also possibly understands the technical issues. But I would be shocked if any of the other candidates have any understanding of the issue.
For all the rest of the candidates, it is not something they've likely ever studied. For them, encryption might as well be some magical fairy dust that computer people sprinkle over computers for security reasons.
//TODO: Think of witty sig statement
It's because you voted for it. And please, save your breath on the "no choice" schtick.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
She can't be trusted, full stop. A vote for Hillary is a vote against your interests because the only interests Hillary has is in what is good for her.
I don't trust Hillary but I trust the goons on the right even less because their interests are routinely directly contrary to my own as well as to what I consider good public policy. All politicians act in self interest and to presume otherwise is dangerously naive. I presume they are acting in self interest and just try to find someone who isn't too obviously a crook and whose interests and positions are closest to mine. I am fully aware that no politician is likely to be what I consider a perfect choice.
Whether a vote for Hillary is against my interests depends very much on what my interests actually are. No Hillary is not my first choice for president among those running but among that crowd she wouldn't be my last choice either. I agree with some things she says and disagree with others. There are some idiots running who say basically nothing I agree with.
When there were backdoors into everything, the government mostly promised the companies to keep their secrets. Could this be "now that they aren't playing ball, we'll hint that they ARE"?
I mean, the core reason behind, say, Google, trying to keep customer data safe is so that they help their customers, right? The customers believe this (ideally, if it is true) and use their services and buy their goods. The scenarios:
No backdoor, and everyone believes there is no back door- Ideal for citizens / users / etc.
Backdoor and no one knows about it- ideal for governments, companies not injured because the backdoors are secret.
Backdoor and everyone knows about it- second best case for citizens / users, because they KNOW the threat. Worst case for companies.
No backdoor, but everyone THINKS there is one- Companies get hurt from both sides.
The government could force companies into category 4 by implying that they own everything, and then it's rational for the companies to turn it into "backdoor and everyone knows about it" to appease at least one party.
Think this could be that?
If I remember correctly this is why PGP was invented in the first place..
There is no compromise, only surrender.
You don't compromise with reality. Nor with mathematics. It is what it is, if you don't like that it really doesn't care nor does it have to. If the politicians insist on backdoors or "golden keys", their system's going to fail miserably and spectacularly. The only question is exactly what form the fireworks are going to take, and who's going to foot the bill for cleaning up the mess. My vote's that, if they keep insisting on this, we counter by insisting that they foot the bill for failure. We've warned them, why should their refusal to listen make us responsible for fixing the resulting crisis?
This issue has been debated for months if not years. If they don't understand the issues at this point it is because they are willfully ignorant of them. Stop giving these people the benefit of the doubt.
"There are lies, there are damn lies, and there are statistics"
Bah Humbug. they are going to engineer the silicon to be the "clipper chip" and walk in when they want, and just not tell anyone.
Please please please don't let that woman into office. The sly secrets and arrogance dwarfs Trump's bigotry and Bernie's communism combined. It's a shame O'Malley doesn't have a chance. I like him.
Hillary's answer is like Nixon's secret plan to end the Vietnam war.
But before we get caught up on what Hillary is and isn't saying, the chances of her getting elected are small enough that her opinions don't matter much these days.
Who on any planet with a blue sky would trust Hillary!?!?!?!
Seriously.
Somebody who hasn't had their brain wiped - with a towel - tell me HOW they can vote for someone involved in just THIS:
Bill Clinton’s pardon of fugitive Marc Rich continues to pay big
Fifteen years ago this month, on Jan. 20, 2001, his last day in office, Bill Clinton issued a pardon for international fugitive Marc Rich. It would become perhaps the most condemned official act of Clinton’s political career. A New York Times editorial called it “a shocking abuse of presidential power.” The usually Clinton-friendly New Republic noted it “is often mentioned as Exhibit A of Clintonian sliminess.”
Congressman Barney Frank added, “It was a real betrayal by Bill Clinton of all who had been strongly supportive of him to do something this unjustified. It was contemptuous.”
Marc Rich was wanted for a list of charges going back decades. He had traded illegally with America’s enemies including Ayatollah Khomeini’s Iran, where he bought about $200 million worth of oil while revolutionaries allied with Khomeini held 53 American hostages in 1979.
Rich made a large part of his wealth, approximately $2 billion between 1979 and 1994, selling oil to the apartheid regime in South Africa when it faced a UN embargo. He did deals with Khadafy’s Libya, Milosevic’s Yugoslavia, Kim Il Sung’s North Korea, Communist dictatorships in Cuba and the Soviet Union itself. Little surprise that he was on the FBI’s Ten Most Wanted List.
But while the pardon was a political mistake, it certainly was not a financial one. In the years following the scandal, the flow of funds from those connected to Marc Rich or the pardon scandal have continued to the Clintons.
Nigerian businessman Gilbert Chagoury is well known as a close ally and business associate of Rich. The Nigerian media declared in 1999 that the “Gilbert Chagoury-Marc Rich alliance remains a formidable foe.” They sold oil on international markets together. In 2000, Chagoury was convicted in Geneva of money laundering and aiding a criminal organization in connection with the billions of dollars stolen from Nigeria during the reign of dictator Gen. Sani Abacha.
Chagoury has been very generous to the Clintons in the years following the Rich pardon. He has organized an event at which Bill was paid $100,000 to speak (in 2003), donated millions to the Clinton Foundation and in 2009 pledged a cool $1 billion to the Clinton Global Initiative.
Then there’s Russian investor Sergei Kurzin. He worked for Marc Rich in the 1990s, traveling around Russia looking for suitable investment opportunities in the crumbled former Soviet Union.
An engineer by training, Kurzin has been involved in lucrative deals in Kazakhstan and other countries, including the lucrative Uranium One deal that involved Bill Clinton and Frank Giustra.
Russia bought 20 percent of all uranium production capacity in the US, a deal that needed to be signed off on by the State Department when it was headed by Hillary Clinton. While the deal was going through, Bill Clinton was paid $500,000 to give a speech in Moscow, paid for by a Russian investment bank promoting the uranium deal.
Kurzin, meanwhile, donated $1 million to the Clinton Foundation.
The implications of that small comment are that nobody trying to get elected is going to admit they've hit a brick wall and aren't going to be able to do shit about something they think a presidential candidate should be able to do.
If you think politicians saying whatever they think it takes to get elected is troubling, you'd best turn off all external news sources for, oh, about the next 85 years.
Log in or piss off.
I can freely hint at revealing another national secret, as long as it is in my personal interest. There are never any negative repercussions for anything I say or do. Let me leave it at that.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
She is admitting SHE broke the secrecy act Again.
Feds: We really need a back door into your encryption. ISIS, think of the children, sky is falling, etc.
Tech Industry: We've done the math. We stand to lose $xxx billion every year if we weaken encryption.
Feds: Think of the children.
Tech Industry: Here's our compromise. We get to keep stashing our global profits tax-free overseas. That's worth about half. We get to bulk import more H1Bs to keep labor costs down here at home. That's worth the other half. You promise to keep this a secret, that's worth another half (makes sure Fed isn't smart enough to do math on 3 halves..).
Feds: We think that's a great deal. Thanks!
So the tech industry gets what they want and makes the problem go away on a zero-cost basis. The Feds get to start bulk jailing people based on parallel constructions. The public gets zero reprieve from mass surveillance and the thing the government could do to help the public by making them pay their taxes and stop wage suppression they give up on.
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity or ignorance.
Stupidest quotation ever. It does serve one purpose, though. Anyone who uses that statement seriously can be safely disregarded, as their basic premise is severely flawed..
We all will suffer, and I won't put up any bank work online.
Terrorists will use "older hardware" or other separate "hideable" encrypted files which OS's can not see or stop. Steganography anyone.
Terrorists aren't even using encryption. They use languages we don't have enough interpreters to translate, along with substituting cliches for crimes in a way that defeats both computer translation and phrase-book translation.
Therefore they will not need or use the specialized systems you describe.
Let me translate: I have no fucking clue, so here's some obfuscation instead.
Copy a fixed amount of predefined, relevant information to a volume which is encrypted with a government public key. There is no need to weaken the basic technology.
The funniest part is how many people believe that *ANYTHING* that was said in a political debate in any way reflects the truth, and that a bullshit answer by a consummate bullshit artist to a bullshit softball question ("that's not what *I* heard...") has any factual content whatsoever. And that people won't wake up and see the truthiness game being played on them when they can so easily spot it being played in the other party.
In Boolean algebra, there are two values 1 and 0. Same with encryption: data is either encrypted or not encrypted.
As such if Boolean algebra could be changed, by law, to have values other than 1 and 0, the the same principle can be applied to encryption. Customers can be told that data is encrypted, but for certain other unwanted parties data is not encrypted.
After mentioning that Obama Administration officials had "started the conversation" with tech companies on the encryption issue, one of the moderators noted that the government "got nowhere" with its requests. Clinton replied, "That is not what I've heard. Let me leave it at that."
Oh, superb. Now we not only have secret organizations with secret appropriations running secret surveillance programs to gather secret evidence which is submitted to secret courts for secret trials, but we actually have a presidential candidate trying to convince voters to vote for her on the basis of privileged secrets that only she, of all the candidates, is allowed to know. How the fucking fuck can we run a democracy this way?
This issue has been discussed for decades. The clipper chip was the same argument in 1992/93 and they failed to get support for it. This isn't a new avenue of thought in politics, as control has been the goal of anyone in power.
Carly Fiorina doesn't understand shit.
> Terrorists aren't even using encryption
... wrong
Yeah, so about that
Not saying the recent uptick in events involved encryption, just that your blanket statement is incorrect.
Bark less. Wag more.
"There should be no bank too big to fail and no individual too big to jail." —Hillary
I think if there's a compromise plan, that includes some sort of 'back door' way to bypass encryption, it should first be Beta Tested on Governmental contracts. All phones used by politicians and government employees should be the first to try out this new encryption bypass. After a 4-year (or more) testing period, we'll see if there's still a drive and desire to have this rolled out further.
Then again, congress should also be participating by mandate in the Healthcare Act. Don't require the people you represent to do anything you won't do yourself. If it's not good enough for you, why is it suddenly good enough for those who elected you to office?
Awk! Pieces of eight. Pieces of eight. Pieces of seven... ERROR: General Protection Fault. [Paroty Error.]
So, now we know the origins of "Damok and Gilad at tenagra"
Sufficiently-advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from malice.
Don't just stand there, get that other dog!
There are exactly two germane points:
#1 (and this absolutely is number one) people must be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, to include both the physical and the digital realms.
#2 Law enforcement and the intelligence community must be able to do their jobs. Cops need to execute warrants when they've been properly issued. The three-letter-acronyms in DC need to keep tabs on organizations, both foreign and domestic, who wish us ill.
The second item must never infringe upon the first. For example, having rubber-stamp warrants being granted in secret is an absolute sham and clearly demonstrates the second rule running over the first.
Everything else is simply deciding the best way to execute those two tasks.
This signature is false.
It wasn't intended as a "blanket" statement, it was a general statement. And it is generally true. Try harder next time. Does your attempted refutation even attempt to refute the main thrust of my claim, or does it leave the main thrust intact?
Because if you did, you'd have NOTHING to do with Clinton.
Where did I say I do? I didn't vote for her husband and she wouldn't be my first choice even within her own party. Though I'd vote for her over pretty much any of the republicans currently running which speaks more to how bad they are than anything else.
in other words, Hillary! LIED.
A politician lied. Gee, I'm shocked. If you can find one that didn't I've got some unicorn farts to sell you. No I don't think the Clinton's are honest. But I prefer their brand of dishonesty to some of the others. Isn't that twisted? I've seen the Clinton brand of BS and while it has a strong odor I'll take it over Bush or Trump any day.
In an interesting article here former CIA and NSA director Michael Hayden claims* to be strongly against backdoors in encryption. It's law enforcement (FBI, DEA, etc) that are pushing for backdoors, not US intelligence (NSA). Hayden's rather chilling rationale is that since the NSA doesn't have to follow any rules, they can do bulk data and metadata collection and largely obviate the need to break encryption.
* Not that you can believe a thing he says, it's still useful to be clear on whether it's law enforcement or an intelligence agency deceiving you.
"does it leave the main thrust intact"
When I read it I was charitable so i got the main thrust, but it still infected my understanding, kind of like stepping on a spot of dried up soft drink on the hallway floor, your mind gets sided tracked for a second but you still get to where you were going.
I mean, it's not like HER server was encrypted or even had firewalls!
Is Hillary going to send the Gestapo after me because my Amazon order history shows books on elliptic curve cryptography? Anyone who knows math can just implement their own crypto without any back doors. Will I get stopped by customs and moved to Guantanamo if I take one of my math books on vacation?
"If you have done nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide. Let me read those emails!" -Clinton paraphrased
"You don't get to read my emails! They're private! Anyway, I wiped them with a cloth!" -Clinton paraphrased
Lets give the quote:
Former NSA chief says U.S. can get around encryption with metadata, argues against backdoors
“Before any civil libertarians want to come up to me afterwards and get my autograph,” he explained at a Tuesday panel on national security hosted by the Council on Foreign Relations, “let me tell you how we got around it: Bulk data and metadata [collection].”
Encryption is “a law enforcement issue more than an intelligence issue,” Hayden argued, “because, frankly, intelligence gets to break all sorts of rules, to cheat, to use other paths.”
Law enforcement and intelligence are different functions.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
If you can't accept a government reading your input (unencrypted if necessary) to the internet, THEN DON"T USE IT. I personally used to be God, and I don't have a problem with any countries government reading that piece of truth, and that's a reason why I intend to keep browsing using the internet.
I doubt any of the candidates have much understanding of the encryption issue. Not even people like Rand Paul when you hear them talk about it responses are cringe worthy.
Hillary is either making shit up with her that's not what I heard comments or has inside knowledge of misrepresentations made to the public she has no qualms keeping under wraps. Either way just another reminder of why she does not deserve my vote.
ATM(e=mc^2) == @ each day $500 AtMeAt33.
Terrorist will say pretty much nothing digitally and simply arranged meetings and say everything face to face, except of course during actual implementation of the plot and then whether or not it is encrypted it makes no difference. They will rely on doughnut munching lard arses preferring to sit in air conditioning comfort in the office masturbating while getting high on invading everyone's privacy, especially private picks of families (sick people are sick and people who get a kick out of invading other people's privacy are as sick as they cum).
The likes of Hillary Clinton just see thoughts of total control, having all the power, it's a disease, attempt to deny them power and they will attack you, that is their nature, their mental disease. That and covering up their incompetence with lies, attempt to expose those lies and again they will attack you.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
That's one example and it's not surprising that some in the community are smart enough to use encryption. In all the actual recent 'attacks' the alleged perpetrators communicated over plain text, in all major cases (9/11, Paris) the governments knew everything about the attack well in advance. Then when Snowden comes out, a bunch of terror plots get foiled, highly publicized, right in lockstep when people start asking about personal encryption.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
She could simply be lying. She does that quite a bit.
They use languages we don't have enough interpreters to translate
The US government should make it illegal to use any other language than english on the internet.
politicians
Law enforcement and intelligence are different functions.
There is hardly a more diplomatic way to put it. Yes, they are, aren't they? Almost to the point where one precludes the other.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
One precludes the other? Only if you think preventing another Pearl Harbor or 9/11 infringes on arresting pick pockets and swindlers.
The path of your reasoning must resemble that of a hungry goat in a hilly pasture.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Since ISIS is largely a construct of US intelligence, I don't think they need a 'backdoor' into their information transmitted across the internet.
Assuming they were able to design and implement a perfect backdoor system with reasonable limited government safeguards:
What is to make the bad guys use it? (Nothing)
Without opening everybody's secrets all the time how would you know if the bad guys are not using it until it was too late? (You would not)
It seems to me that the best a 'perfect' backdoor system can work is as good as gun control where only the bad guys get guns.
Until someone can explain why this is not the case, I would hope that reason prevails.
Ps: The first assumption is a long shot because there is a wide divide on what 'reasonable' means.
Only if you think preventing another Pearl Harbor or 9/11 infringes on arresting pick pockets and swindlers.
Yeah, if only that was what they are trying to do... And besides, what do you know about 9/11?
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
@@
It is. Could you be more specific? My fingers aren't up to typing an entire seminar at the moment.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Yeah yeah, pull the other one...
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
That's what I thought. Well, given your "sensibilities" ...
Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
I never doubted what happened. It's just that none of you will follow the money, to the source. And, when you don't allow cross examination, well, you know, it doesn't reflect well on your case, not that it mattered, the same old corrupt republicans and democrats still rule. So, the point is kinda moot. You win...
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Although I expect we'll end up back at the same place as the issue of the suicide bombers, go ahead. Who do you think "the money" traces back to? I assume you think it isn't Osama Bin Laden (before he lost his inheritance).
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
EASY - just require that your key be encrypted with the public key from your local region and shove it on the front of the encrypted data. Now government can spy on all ignorant citizens.
It means nothing because not only do these people know zero about the issue but their current advisors also know zero about the issue. Guesses are being reported and those guesses sound like authoritarian madness because that's the dumbed down to the point of utter evil form of government.
Ah yes, our favorite "Saudi businessman", maybe he did it with the money he was paid for services rendered for queen and country in Afghanistan. How much much you figure the whole thing cost? Just like with your ISIS guys, you gotta include payments (in American dollars, not shekels or Euros) to the various families and other obligations, not just directly to the soldiers. We all admit that it's boxing in the Russians very nicely, with a bow. And with their petro dollar worth shit, they could hardly be weaker. It's just that the nature of your business really is no mystery. But then again, Trump's success proves that facade is holding up just fine. So, you know, tally ho and all that
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Then they will have one. I take the Fourth Amendment seriously. It is not remotely allowed for government to go through my electronic effects at will including my communications. Forget about it. I and many others will fight this by any and all means necessary. We also not use any products of collaborators and/or consider them declared enemies.
You have more chance of being harmed by a falling tree limb than by a terrorist. Using terrorism as an excuse to let government run wild is the practice of morons conditioned by a diet of FUD to be led by the nose by their real oppressors.
Since when English is spoken in the US?
Follow the money ? Well the vast majority of 9/11 Attackers were Saudis, Saudi Arabia is America's great friend despite being one of the least free countries on earth with one of the worst human rights track records.
Frankly the Saudi government makes the Cuban government look positively benign by comparison - yet the latter had decades of sanctions and the former is considered a trusted friend and ally.
But the money trail hasn't ended. One of America's most royal families, who happened to have provided the president at the time of the attacks, has massive holdings in the country, and Saudi's in turn are major investors in their companies.
There's your money following... 9/11 response was misplaced into two insane wars including with a country that had nothing to with it whatsoever because the one country the US really COULD have had a just war with over those events was somebody who made some very powerful politicians very, very rich.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
The problem with that observation is that in many cases, tree limbs that are determined by a city arborist to endanger a public road might have to be removed. This is enabled by various laws including zoning laws. Grass or dry plants determined by the Fire Marshall to be a hazard might be forcibly removed from private land, the resident sent the bill.
Luckily, others are making better arguments.
Bin Laden had in inheritance from his father who had run one of the most successful construction companies in the region if not on the planet. It was worth around $300,000,000 IIRC. He spent a lot of that on financing his various projects.
"Boxing in the Russians"? The Russians have been out of Afghanistan for a very long time. The main oil problem they have is the low cost of oil, and you can thank the Saudis for that.
Please stop talking in riddles. Who do you think that 9/11 goes back to if you "follow the money"? Who do you think was responsible for it?
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Encryption with a backdoor is not encryption.. Hackers around the world work 24/7 365 looking for exploits to infect people with backdoors. Now the government wants to do it for them? It's not a matter of if they get access, it's when they get it. It would cause more damage than every terrorist attack in history combined. We rely on encryption for almost everything, and just because you don't see it doesn't mean it's not in play behind the scenes. Newsflash, hackers evolve with technology too.
We're not even remotely close to cracking today's encryption using a strong key, and it's possible that we may never crack it. At one hundred trillion guesses per second an 80 character password would take 5.31 hundred trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion centuries to crack. That's with a good mixture of upper & lower case characters, symbols, and digits. Even if Moore's law wasn't failing we'll never come close to having enough computing power to brute force it.
It is throwing away your vote, as Lessig is not running anymore.
Actually if recent examples prove anything the conversation goes more like this:
Gov: "Give us a backdoor, or we'll just destroy you in court."
CEO: "Okdokie!"
Interestingly, in Canada the conversation went the other way. I hope this has been fixed, but probably it has not, as it had to do with many requests didn't have warrants. Anyway, the amount of requests made were so many (in the millions of requests in a year), that the companies had a hard time dealing with them. So not only did the companies *want* to build a backdoor so that they didn't have to handle the volume of requests anymore, they wanted the government to actually *pay* to build it! This eventually went political, and I think went away, although I am not sure if the amount of requests has been addressed.
The Russians have been out of Afghanistan for a very long time.
And now we are trying move them out of Syria and Ukraine, and Georgia, etc. And yes, we are very busy thanking Saudi Arabia for dumping the oil. They are doing that as a 'friend', because we asked, nicely, with a big pile of money and weaponry, and even more of your tax dollars will subsidize them should there be any difficulties with the locals. It's all for Europe's benefit more than the U.S. directly. And it's working. The decline of the ruble is starting to make headlines. Their military can't afford to be so adventurous, can it?
Who do you think that 9/11 goes back to if you "follow the money"?
Don't know yet. Unlike Nixon, they burned the tapes, and there has been no cross examination of what is left.. So, we have to work with the plausible. No use discussing it here, when all you will do is your own hand waving. Right now, I'm more interested in you and your motivations for being a mouthpiece.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
traitor is still the right word as Hilary and the republican candidates are intent on consolidating power at the top rather than helping out your average american.. that is a traitor, she isn't fighting for the American public, she is fighting for her self and only her self, there is your intent.
whether they are educated or not in the field, they have advisers, industry leaders and any other intellectual that they could call upon to explain it to them in order to make sure that they understand what they are saying. There is no excuse, if anyone wants to be a representative leader then they would understand that they have a responsibility to fully comprehend the decisions they are making. the only way someone would not do this is if they were not in it to be a representative leader but they were in it for the power.. and in my books, that is traitorous.
with the middle class rising in china and the economic structure of our civilization changes day to day, what would stop any of those tech companies from just leaving the states.. did no one learn anything from the crypto export laws? the US lost a bunch of money to other countries over that one..
In fact, i hope she is right and a few of the companies capitulate to the US government. in fact i really hope that its Microsoft, google and apple all together, then we may see the unintended consequences and get some more Service and OS providers in the market! as there are people in the world outside of the United States you guys aren't on an island, the rest of the world is watching and we are seeing a bunch of whiny babies running your country..
"its getting to hard to do our jobs, so we must make it easier by legislating back doors into products because our police force is actually too lazy to do the ground work and investigate"
why is it that law enforcement is the only group that gets a free pass to say that? its not like doctors can say "fighting cancer is hard, lets just kill all the people with cancer so we don't have to do it." or firefighters say "fighting fires is hard, so you must have a 200 gallon reservoir of water in your attic so that we dont have to fight fires, we just wait until the fire gets bad enough to melt the reservoir and release all the water. "
what if creditors made you wear an ankle bracelet if you ever borrowed money.. just because it would be easier to locate you to pay it back.. eventhough it would violate every ounce of privacy you have left.
if these back doors make things unprofitable for apple or Microsoft or google? isn't it within the boards fiduciary responsibility to maximize shareholder return.. if that is impossible, isn't it then with in the boards prerogative to shutter the company and sell off all assets for the benefit of the shareholder?
i wonder what that would do to the economy, if one of those three just shut their doors and says, so long and thanks for all the fish? thousands of unemployed, no support for deployed products.. wow the unintended consequences and blow back could be horrible. the size and the integration of these companies make them more important to your average user than the banks that all got bailouts around 08. how do politicians not see how beholden to the tech companies they are.. maybe Hilary thinks that isn't the case because she ran her own email server.
In other news, a spokesman for the New York City Mugger's Guild has hinted that a compromise between muggers and pedestrians may be in the works, allowing mugger's to take only 70% instead of 100% of any cash and credit cards being carried by persons they accost on the street.
I'm sorry, but what makes you think she isn't simply covering for a mis-spoken answer? I think she just wanted to seem on top of the issue, and when challenged answered (essentially) 'if I told you I'd have to kill you'. As a person who ran her own mail server, did SHE have any back doors on her server?
Just wait till all those fracking jobs end, and the rig owners default on BILLIONS in loans made on the assumption oil would never go below $75/bbl... The economic meltdown will be huge. But yeah, we paid the Saudis to destroy OPEC and ruin our economy. You understand that the Saudis pay for their weaponry with their own money - we don't 'give' them anything, we 'allow' them to buy - huge difference.
The government should protect the citizens that it works for. We should not elect people who waste time doing the opposite.
Another example of the major parties listening to special interests instead of the people. I simply cannot support any candidates who supports back door encryption and spying on their own citizens. Both major parties and candidates are in full support of back doors.
Don't worry! I'm sure the government is also working with the lock industry to find a compromise that allows the government to have a back door to all locks including the lock on your house, your safes, your car, your shed, and anything else you use a lock on. Like back door encryption they argue that it is necessary for them to have access to a back door on all locks in order to protect us from terrorism and they claim they will not abuse such a key. Think of the positives! If the DEA, DHS, or your local narcotics strike force comes to your house by accident to serve a knock-and-announce or no-knock warrant they won't have to use battering rams to force your door open resulting in you having to file a homeowners insurance claim. They also can do it while you are not home or while you're sleeping so that they don't disturb you and you will never even notice that they were going through your stuff since there will be no signs of forced entry and law enforcement will be sure to lock your door after they are done so that nobody else can break in. Now the bad news! burglars will eventually figure out this back door key and also be able to break into your house at any time not showing any signs of forced entry. One day you will have a valuable turn up missing or some of your money disappear and you will think that you simply misplaced this money or valuable or that your spouse or one of your children is the thief. Since you have no idea that someone was even inside your house, you will have no idea that you are the victim of theft and how would you be able to prove to police that such an item was stolen anyway? With no physical evidence that you were robbed, how do you expect the police to believe you that someone stole items from your house. It could even be a corrupt law enforcement officer who went inside your house to steal items.
You also have a bigger chance of being struck and killed by lightening than being killed in a terrorist attack. What is the government doing to protect us from lightening other than telling us to avoid being outside on high ground during a thunderstorm?
Yeah, just you wait until then... and you'll find out that they're a tiny tiny fraction of the multi-trillion dollar US economy, and that lower gas prices helps the economy way way more than the income from the US fossil fuel sector.
Guess what, the rest of the business lobby is more powerful than the oil guys are by themselves. When their interests conflict with the economy in general, you should expect government to turn away from them. In this case, the international politics of the US in regard to Russia is aligned with the general US business desire for low energy prices. That combined with Iran getting ready to rejoin the market, combined with projected reduction in fossil energy demand in few years, (based on the level of investment growth in renewable generation and the growth of electric car demand) leaves the Saudis happy to protect their market share by having a price war with US producers. Under normal conditions the US would be inclined to try to protect the US producers, so the Saudis wouldn't have tried it in an adversarial way; it is obvious they cleared the policy with the US first.
That makes me want a T-shirt that says, "I'm no worse than Earth Sugardrink"
Well, we've also just learned that the Planet Turkana IV is really Germany...
Additionally, it takes one mildly intelligent (maybe that's the problem) staffer/consultant/adviser to brief them in 10 minutes with enough details to make an informed decision. THAT is how most of the government operates/should operate. I'm sorry, but we CAN'T expect our representatives to have thorough knowledge of each and every area that comes before them. But what we can do, is expect them to have contact with those who are experts in the area to brief them.
"Encryption can be applied to data to make it nearly impossible to read by anyone other than those intended to read it. This causes a perceived problem for law enforcement since it allows criminals to communicate with the actual messages in secret. This forces additional measures, such as surveillance, wire tapping, etc to gather enough information to be able to read these messages. Such actions require probable cause and a warrant. The proposed solution is to require a backdoor into all encryption which allows our government's law enforcement agencies access to all encrypted data. This would eliminate the potential need for the surveillance and other methods, which is clearly more efficient for law enforcement, but is also easily (and currently by design) abused without requiring probable cause and a warrant. So not only is this a legal/constitutional issue, which you should advise a lawyer and constitutional scholar in regards to, but it poses additional technical, security, and economic problems as well.
Technically, this will be nearly impossible to fully implement, as hardware and software methods exist which will be beyond the control of the government. Although it may be effective on a large scale, any foreign government or even dedicated small group would be able to bypass this technology/requirement. This will be obvious to us though, and at least make it easy to single those groups out, and also create probable cause/be a volition of law. From a security standpoint, the most important from my area of expertise, is that backdoor are essentially global. So if ever discovered, either through leak (think Snowden), through infiltration (think Los Alamos), or technical discovery (think Enigma), the other party would also have the same unfettered level of access. So for instance, if the Chinese were able to find the backdoor, they would have access to all financial, security, population, scientific, etc information of the entire United States population including the government and it's individual members (think YOU). The economic impact should be discussed with your economic advisor, and I would love to be in on that meeting to provide my input. But essentially, there is significant risk that foreign business would decide not to do business in the USA for the above security reasons. Additionally, many USA companies may consider moving significant assets and operations out of the country. This may impact the overall economy on a scale large enough to warrant considerable concern and investigation before action.
To recap:
Possibly unconstitutional
Easily abused
Possibly ineffective
Definitely insecure
Possibly has a large scale, negative economic impact
Are you up to date, and/or have any questions for me?"
Really....isn't THAT reasonable to expect anyone in a position to make decisions in the government to understand? They don't need to know ALL the technical details, private/public keys, IPSEC/TLS/GPG/Hash Tables/whatever. I mean, if that ask, sure, provide more details, but you know they won't. But they WILL have a firm grasp of the issues at hand.
Their next move (if not actually the step before this discussion) WILL be, how will voting up or down this measure impact my current position, and potential future upward mobility in the political landscape? THEN they will unfortunately base their decision on the answer to that question, not the analysis I would have provided. At which point it is pretty easy to a