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.
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.
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.
You mean except for when Rand Paul attached CISPA to a spending bill?
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.
Do the presidential candidates know what encryption is and how technology commonly uses it?
Some of them just dodged the question. I like the way Cruz answered, even if I don't fully agree: Apple has a point in not wanting to do this wholesale, but law enforcement has an actual warrant, and that how the Fourth Amendment is supposed to work.
Anything that prevents wholesale warrantless data gathering is good IMO, but with a warrant, and not some BS secret warrant from a secret court but a legitimate warrant? There's not a Fourth Amendment case to be made here. Forcing someone to decrypt their own shit violates the Fifth, irredeemably so IMO, but that not this.
I hope Apple wins because of slippery slopes, not the specific details of this case.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
I don't know how much you know about warrants and the Fourth Amendment, but they can't compel anyone to actually work for the government. Apple is being told that the warrant requires them to develop software on the government's behalf.
The Fourth Amendment is about search and seizure. The warrant in question doesn't apply to either. The government can't force you to search my house for evidence, for example.
You are welcome on my lawn.
"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!