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.
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.
So your government doesn't give me what I want? OK. NEXT!
I'm a corporation. If I don't like what you offer, I move next door. And of course I take my taxes and my jobs with me.
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"
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.
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."
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
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"
Except if you're Hillary and part of the government you don't like wants your emails from the time you spent as secretary of state.
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.
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.
It is very upsetting that all three candidates gave very wishy washy answers on this topic. Although to be honest they are just politicians so these answers are probably simply the ones their focus groups said alienated the least voters.
But the summary is reading too much into Hillary's comments. The moderators simply called Clinton out on her bullshit answer, and she made that last comment to save face. It was just another lie to cover for the lies in her other lies.
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
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.
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.
Hillary Clinton does not currently hold an office or position that would put her in possession of classified information. The idea that her answer was given to save face for being called on her previous bullshit is the most likely scenario.
I'd say she still has access to a lot of people who do have access to classified information, and she probably has advisors who had access very recently...
I wouldn't be so quick to rule out her having access to classified information.
Though her comment on this is reprehensible either way. Either she just leaked classified information to save face, or she is pretending to leak classified information to save face.
SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling
Hearts and minds, my ass. What I want is your wallet. You can keep heart and mind, that's not marketable.
And trust me, people may bitch, moan and rant all they want, as long as they keep buying. And they WILL keep buying. Just look at Apple, Microsoft, Android... They bitch. They moan. They rant. They complain. They swear to hate everything they do. And they buy their product.
And that last bit is the ONLY thing corporations care about.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
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
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.
She could simply be lying. She does that quite a bit.
You can keep heart and mind, that's not marketable.
That's not true. Hearts, kidneys, livers, lungs... and the mind of a day trader are all very marketable.
Their politics is identical. Piss and moan, then reelect the devil they know. Such is the irrational man.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”