Slashdot Mirror
Where Do the Presidential Candidates Stand On Encryption? (windowsitpro.com)
v3rgEz writes: In a divided election year, encryption brings parties together — against technology. That's the sobering finding based on transcripts from the remaining presidential candidates, all of whom came out against cryptography and for government backdoors to varying degrees. It's a testament to the post-Snowden era (and Apple's fight against a court order to backdoor an iPhone) that every candidate has been asked about the issue multiple times, but only one candidate even acknowledged that backdoors cause great security concerns for the public.
they're indecipherable
The summery has three links to the exact same article. Well, keep trying, I'm still not gonna RTFA.
With the government. Maybe except Bernie, I'd guess. This is a surprise? They are the government.
(...reads TFA...)
In fact, only one candidate, Marco Rubio, seemed to allow for any nuance on the issue.
Holy shit... really?
Rubio:
Here's the thing though, if you require by law – if we passed a law that required Apple and these companies to create a backdoor, number one, criminals could figure that out and use it against you. And number two, there's already encrypted software that exists, not only now but in the future created in other countries. We would not be able to stop that.
If you create a backdoor, there is a very reasonable possibility that a criminal gang could figure out what the backdoor is. That possibility is – if you create a backdoor, you're creating a vulnerability. And what you're not going to chance is the fact that other companies around the world who are not subject to U.S. laws – they could create encryption technology that we'll never be able to get access to.
Wow... someone has an actual technology adviser worth a damn on his staff.
Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
Ron Paul and Rand Paul would have both made excellent choices when it comes to getting government spying on Americans under control. Too bad they are isolationists
Most if not all presidential candidates who make it this far in the race will say whatever they thing will get them elected.
Perhaps I'm just unskilled at it, but I'm unable to predict what any President will actually do in office, based on his/her stated positions leading up to the election.
Does it even matter, we have had quite a long stretch of presidents that destroy manufacturing(jobs in general), increase surveillance/police state etc.
TFA doesn't paint a good picture of Sanders on this issue.
The comments of those candidates show a total failure of all the intrusions by NSA with their PRISM project. Supposedly the NSA recorded all meta-data (who talks to who), yet the main argument of the presidential candidates on having back doors is not "what were they talking about" but "who were they talking to" - exactly the kind of information that PRISM was supposedly recording.
Several candidates mention this specifically. Who were they talking to? Who knew about this? What were the contacts of these criminals? What was their network? All these questions the NSA is supposed to be able to answer, if Snowden's revelations are anything to go by. Now I don't doubt Snowden's claims at all, so this all points to a terrible failure of the NSA of doing anything with the massive amount of information on phone calls and e-mail traffic they recorded.
Of course finding out about crimes or terrorist type attacks in the planning stage based on this kind of data may be incredibly hard; figuring out who these people had contact with after the fact should be much easier as at least they now have a very clear starting point.
So if there's one thing these pro-back door arguments point at, it's an epic failure of law enforcement. Not only did these agencies totally overstep their legal and moral boundaries, they did nothing to prevent this attack, and can not even provide any help or information after the fact. Maybe they should go back to good old policing: keeping personal contacts with the neighbourhoods, keeping good relations with the people, and actually get useful information directly out of the community the old fashioned way. It'll make lots of people a lot happier (if only because of the increased local security and social situation).
from TFA:
Bernie Sanders
From the fourth Democratic debate:
Sanders: You would all be amazed, or maybe not, about the amount of information private companies and the government has in terms of the Web sites that you access, the products that you buy, where you are this very moment.
Sanders: And it is very clear to me that public policy has not caught up with the explosion of technology. So yes, we have to work with Silicon Valley to make sure that we do not allow ISIS to transmit information...
Moderator: But in terms of lone wolves, the threat, how would you do it?
Sanders: Right. What we have got to do there is, among other things, as I was just saying, have Silicon Valley help us to make sure that information being transmitted through the Internet or in other ways by ISIS is, in fact, discovered. But I do believe we can do that without violating the constitutional and privacy rights of the American people.
If you read the article, both Rubio and Cruz "acknowledged that backdoors cause great security concerns". That's two.
Cruz:
Rubio:
Do people make really obvious mistakes in these summaries on purpose? Are you trolling us?
Do the presidential candidates know what encryption is and how technology commonly uses it? Don't set the bar too high - you are dealing with politicians, although one of them apparently ran her own email server so you would hope that she at least knows the value of encryption!
I agree that Rubio seems to have the best stance of the current field, but that's not saying much. Honestly I don't think any of them (except *maybe* Rubio) even understand how encryption works. I would hope that any of these candidates, should they become president, would put more effort into gaining a better understanding of encryption before making any consequential decisions. I think one can be excused for not having a good answer for a question about a complicated technology especially in a debate format where answers need to be in 30 second sound bytes.
I think if phrased in the language of "We don't put bad mathematics in American textbooks to hedge against terrorists that might read it", we could maybe help the American people and politicians understand what they are dealing with.
As tragic as the deaths from terrorism are, it's not clear that making all our encryption insecure via backdoors will be a good trade off for some if any reduction in terrorism. There is a very real possibility that we would be causing more deaths and other harm from preventable security breaches.
Even if some new advancement in cryptography allowed us to have vastly more secure backdoors, (after all the Turing Awards were handed out) it would still not be clear that we *should* give this power to the government, given their history of abuse of their powers and oversight evasion.
I don't expect every politician to be an expert on every subject, especially encryption. This is where I think character and integrity plays a big role for me.
I wouldn't say that I trust Marco Rubio to stick to any position if the circumstances changed, and I can't say that I trust his judgement in general. But kudos to him for having the best answer at least currently.
He sounds like every other politician - trying to have it both ways. A HUGE disappointment.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
You just happen to be a member of the crowd to which Bernie is playing. And, obviously, he is doing a good job of it.
Don't ever make the mistake of trusting him. Every action he takes that is not subject to public scrutiny will be a betrayal, as is true of every politician (that succeeds).
Nonsense. Sanders has had a remarkably open and public political career. He has answered questions from the public for an hour every Friday for years on the Thom Hartmann Show and his answers are reassuringly consistent and are backed up by his voting record. Plenty of Republicans in Vermont trust him because he does what he says he will. With regards to the surveillance state, Sander's has been outspoken in his opposition to pervasive data collection, voicing support for Edward Snowden's whistleblowing. Here's and article comparing his stance on NSA spying to that of Secretary Clinton.
I have observed that Sanders has generally narrowed his message in his campaign rhetoric, and specifically seems to avoids nuances of electronic security and privacy during the debates.
Reading those is genuinely scary. And there's something even more alarming than the nitwitted stand on encryption itself. Nearly all the candidates talk about how they will "make Apple do this" or "have Silicon Valley do that". Their opinions that they should have the power to conscript anyone they damn well please into doing their dirty work for them is the genuinely offensive and frightening. The abuses of the NSA are bad enough. But at least that was an entirely government operation. Forcing uninvolved third parties to unwillingly aid them on spying on the citizens... that's some seriously east-German Stasi level thuggery.
Imagine all the people...
I recall a candidate saying that we have nothing to fear but fear itself. Seems to me America has become the land afraid of some terrorists and not so much the land of the brave. Are we country that we are willing to give up freedom in order for some sense of security, or are we a country which stands strong and brave through everything no matter what? As an American, I would never give up my freedom, even if all of the world's terrorists strike our soil.
None of them understand the issue. Some of them are more easily bribed than others. And some them have stronger bribery relationships with some companies.
Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free
Four links in the lead para. All identical, all to "WindowsIT.pro".
Show some restraint in shoving your brand down our throats.
One link is informative. Two is over--enthusiastic. FOUR IS SPAM.
And he is against all back doors.
SOMEONE please explain why they NEED to unlock that phone? Every call and text to that phone went through U.S. communications channels!
There's at least one candidate - Clinton - whose views on encryption have already be backed by action, namely her and Bill's friend Al "Clipper Chip" Gore and support for the Clipper Chip itself.
Notable that the FBI is trying to make a government mandated backdoor happen again...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
In reality we know they can't have it both ways no matter how much they legislate, because neither maths nor inanimate objects care about the whims of politicians or lawmakers. I wonder how much the candidates truly understand this as they say these things: are they aware that what they are saying is not and can not ever be realistic and just playing to the crowd on the campaign trail, or are they still too ignorant of this area to realise?
To me, as someone outside the US with no particular axe to grind in US politics, the interesting question is which of the candidates (if any) would most likely act reasonably and responsibly when they do learn enough about the subject to have a more informed opinion.
It's also interesting that they say these things so openly with an international audience. For sure every time they play the patriotism card by talking about protecting the "American constitution" or "US citizens' rights" or the ability of "US intelligence agencies" to intercept communications they are also antagonising everyone else in the world, and as at least some of them do seem to realise, the rest of the world isn't necessarily going to give up encryption nor co-operate with US authorities even if they do go down this legislative path back home.
I can see why the big tech firms are resisting this, because already here in the UK I know some of them are viewed with deep suspicion just for being US-based. Surely losing the trust of international markets is going to make a noticeable difference to their revenues sooner or later. If this goes on for too long then there must also be a real risk of rival businesses becoming established in places like Europe and Asia, in which case the US dominance of parts of the tech industry might never fully recover.
I'm a little surprised that even with the whole "security first" angle there isn't more vocal concern about the effect on big US tech firms if the US government interferes too much. I figured at least the Republican side of the field would probably be more pro-business than that, but presumably everyone's pollsters are telling them they have to back security as the top priority with a majority of their target voters right now.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
What a horrible thing to say. The guy is obviously a monster and doesn't realize that violating the constitutional and privacy rights of the American people is a feature, not a bug.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Did you not notice how the story has changed from "we can't do it" to "we shouldn't do it?"
If this were a current iPhone it would have the secure enclave hardware which theoretically does make it "secure from the get-go." Apple was pushed by public opinion backlash as a result of the Snowden revelations and a long line of law enforcement requests to decrypt phones to design something that they literally couldn't decrypt. Modern iPhones are designed so that Apple should not be able to decrypt them. However, this is an iPhone 5c, which doesn't have the enclave hardware, and thus can be coerced into taking a software update signed by Apple which disables the software protections against brute force attacks.
That said there are three other stories.
Story one: What precedent does this set?
Government can compel companies to create things they don't want to create for use against the privacy of the individual. Who knows, with secret courts and orders, you may already have a phone that the local corrupt sheriff can spy on.
What if Apple does give in?
Government can compel companies to create software updates for phones that were purchased under the agreement they were supposed to be secure even from the manufacturer. Secretly of course. This one is only public because Apple can fight it, but next time it won't be.
What about external encryption options?
You know there are options to do things to your phone outside of what Apple plans of course. Would this mean that anyone wanting a secure phone would need to get a phone from overseas? I can see why Apple would want to avoid that. Ideally, if Apple has to cave, they'll build phones that can be secured after purchase.
Whatever governments do in order to spy acts as inoculation against spying in the future. The good news is that whatever happens, it makes more people aware of the problem with governments having too much power to spy on you.
They're just trying to capitalize on a crisis to strong-arm Apple into obedience. The shooters are already dead.
No way to actually know. They won't tell us, and even if they got caught lying about it, then they would just point at some obscure law that required them to lie about it.
Going on the personalities, I believe that Bernie Sanders has the right philosophy on that issue, as on so many others. Most of the other candidates are corporatist tools who will do and say whatever the big companies want them to do and say. A couple of them are dangerous authoritarian lunatics, and it's just a matter of degree. I would say Cruz is worst, you might pick Trump. (None of them are as bad as the big dick Cheney, and it seems the country survived that...)
By the way, my one-handed theory is that the FBI already cracked the terrorist's smartphone in California, but they are pretending they didn't so we'll still think we have some secrets or privacy. Even the richest 0.1% can't afford real privacy these days...
On the other hand, I do think that there is such a thing as encryption that is effectively uncrackable, and no law can outlaw the ideas and the technologies. But when we look at the third hand, it sort of makes sense to outlaw it. Then the cops don't have to worry about whether or not the encryption is used for lawful or unlawful purposes, since using the encryption will already define you as an outlaw.
"When encryption is outlawed, only criminals will have encryption by definition."
Convenient, eh?
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
Apple's not been spending enough of it's huge pile of cash on "lobbying" or "campaign funds". If that's what you want to call it.
Those who would like a bite of that juicy fruit are trying to shake them down with all this "backdoor" bullshit.
I can't seriously believe America is run by morons who think forcing it's tech companies into breaking their products is not going to affect international sales.
Ask Cisco...
You would make your point better if you didn't mistakenly suggest that a Far right politician like Obama is Socialist.
"That's the sobering finding based on transcripts from the remaining presidential candidates, all of whom came out against cryptography"
I call BS! Find a Libertarian candidate who supports this...oh you meant one of the media authorized duopoly? Then, of course; there is no difference between them.
Gary Johnson 2016!
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — forever.
-1984
An interesting definition of socialism certainly "a bit less right wing than the other right wing party". One of the strange things about American politics is that the US has not had a left wing part for a long time, if ever. The UK is like that now (Corbyn aside) and it seems the way things are going.
Neil Kinnock, the former leader of the British Labour party told a story in an interview about an American woman you looked at him in astonishment and said "You can't be socialists, you're too nice".
A lot of the world (most of Europe for a start) has had numerous socialist governments without any more murder than under right wing governments. Oh, you mean communists? Different from socialists, and no American government has been anywhere near being either.
They're standing on encryption, jumping up and down hoping it will crack.
First it should be a "front door". Something that everyone knows its there, rather than a secret weaselish thing.
Secondly, it must be something that not only requires possessing the actual device, but also cracking it open to access some internal header pin where you plug this "magical device" that can extract the phone password from an otherwise write only memory that can't be read by the phone itself even if you reset/voltage/clock glitch it.
And finally, this "magical device" must be really secure and unable to be emulated by mere guesswork or even unlawful access to it, and must be something that is stored on a secured safe and only taken out due a court order request.
"In a divided election year, encryption brings parties together — against technology."
Because the populace is oh so ter-terr-terrified of ter-terr-terrorists that there are shit tons of votes to be had by a politician who is for anything that can be marketed as being 'Against Terrorism' (tm).
Most Americans don't stop listening to MSM long enough to actually consider that the actual threat from terrorism is effectively zero.
blindly antisocialist = antisocial
Socialism has such a great track record. Of murdering people, not so much helping them.
Socialism, just like capitalism, comes in different flavors. If there's totalitarian socialism and democratic socialism, then you also state capitalism and crony capitalism of the Chinese, Russian and US varieties. Yes, I consider the US defense industry crony capitalism.
What he is saying is that he believes that he can find a way to violate the rights of the american people without violating the rights of the american people.
"His name was James Damore."
Sorry folks, but the right to privately encrypt is political "flyover country". You are hard pressed to find a candidate willing to make a deliberate and informed statement about it, and even then, don't be surprised if you get screwed over. No pitchfork mob will rise up with you to redress your grievance. Bill Clinton seemed reasonable until he and his NSA inspired hatchet-men Al Gore and Louis Freeh rolled out the Clipper Chip abomination . It was like lightning from a clear sky. A clear example of the Kindergarten Effect .
Fourth Amendment discussions are often tainted by rhetorical and useless arguments. You can actually tell a lot more about a candidate's fitness to defend civil liberties and freedom from unwarranted government surveillance and law enforcement intrusion by asking them about about the Second Amendment and Roe Vs. Wade. THOSE issues are where the rubber meets the road --- If they and I disagree on those it's a deal-breaker no matter what.
Here's the problem though. Those who land on my side of 2nd Amendment/Roe tend also to think the gub'mint needs to listen to everybody to keep duh terrorist at bay. But then again, they all do... Republicans do it right in your face, Democrats do it secretly and lie through their teeth about doing it. That is why the United States suffered grievous harm when we questioned (and rejected) the fitness of one Ron Paul, a true conservative.
<blink>down the rabbit hole</blink>
OMG, that's horrible! This is the USA and nobody wants no goddamn thoughtful discussion.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Your point would be better made if you didn't resort to partisan politics. Right wing, left wing, they are all the same. They waist obscene amounts of money, pander to a handful of lobbyists, and enact regulations to further limit the freedoms of the American people. Voting in this political climate is like playing Russian roulette with a fully loaded gun.
Brilliance without wisdom, power without conscience. Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants.
I suppose it's better than the last guy, who made strong promises before the election and then did a shifty-eyed retreat when he had become president: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Here is Obama on government surveillance: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... Note how he turned from a forceful speaker before the election into a spineless buffoon after the election.
To top it off, we already know who the killers are - they're dead. Breaking into the phone because it "might" in some alternate universe have vital information that isn't already obtainable elsewhere, and using this as the argument for imposing laws on encryption, is not just over-reach - its stupid on it's face.
What sort of incentives would other countries be willing to give to have Apple relocate?
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Then the NRA would be all over this and every politician would cry Second Amendment.
I'm not saying Obama was perfect - he wasn't, and I knew that going in, he was just the best option we had at the time - but I will also say, it's pretty hard to get much "change" accomplished when the majority of the legislative branch is like, "we will veto literally ANYTHING you try to do, no matter what, just because we hate you personally and want to see you fail". It's impressive that he got *anything* accomplished given that backdrop, and that is totally a problem we'll still face even with someone as super cool as Bernie in the oval. (Maybe even more so - his proposed changes would probably be even more anathema to conservatives than a more moderate like Obama.)
Props for the Max Headroom quote.
I'm really a low 5-digit Slashdotter, but this ID is where I am now.
Let's make a law where the police have the master key to all locks on your house and your car. Because terrorists.
brings parties together — against technology
Encryption isn't all technology, if I may be so pedantic. And quite a bit of technology is involved in breaking or modifying encryption.
But agreed, backdoors are dangerous, bad ideas.
Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
I don't think the anti-encryption thing is ubiquitous across the political spectrum.
Despite some demurs against Eric Snowden, Rush Limbaugh (who some of these candidates would pay very dearly for an endorsement from) just said on the radio that he would simplifying things even more: if you want the government to be able to track and listen to you via your phone, then you should oppose what Apple is doing.
You do realize that Bernie has been a lifelong independent, right? Are you one of those people who believes that anyone with the power to reform the corrupt system must be part of the corrupt system? What's you're suggestion? Do nothing?
The key word here is seems. Deception is the primary skill for a politician. None succeed without it. You just happen to be a member of the crowd to which Bernie is playing. And, obviously, he is doing a good job of it.
Don't ever make the mistake of trusting him. Every action he takes that is not subject to public scrutiny will be a betrayal, as is true of every politician (that succeeds).
I do actually agree with you here and especially after '08 I can't ever trust a politician ever again. Yet when presented the option, I'd still rather vote for the guy saying the right things (but perhaps not doing them afterwards) rather than the guy who outright says the wrong thing from the get go. Now while I don't believe in the lesser of two evils strategy so I would normally advocate to vote independent but Bernie Sanders WAS an independent until right before the election.
In Capitalist US, the commerce controls the Government.