Slashdot Mirror


Will Trump's Presidency Bring More Surveillance To The US? (scmagazine.com)

An anonymous reader reports that Donald Trump's upcoming presidency raises a few concerns for the security industry: "Some of his statements that industry professionals find troubling are his calls for 'closing parts of the Internet', his support for mass surveillance, and demands that Apple should have helped the FBI break the encrypted communications of the San Bernardino shooter's iPhone," writes SC Magazine. One digital rights activist even used Trump's surprise victory as an opportunity to suggest President Obama begin "declassifying and dismantling as much of the federal government's unaccountable, secretive, mass surveillance state as he can -- before Trump is the one running it... he has made it very clear exactly how he would use such powers: to target Muslims, immigrant families, marginalized communities, political dissidents, and journalists."

Edward Snowden's lawyer says "I think many Americans are waking up to the fact we have created a presidency that is too powerful," and the Verge adds that Pinboard CEO Maciej Ceglowski is now urging tech sites to stop collecting so much data. "According to Ceglowski, the only sane response to a Trump presidency was to get rid of as much stored user data as possible. 'If you work at Google or Facebook,' he wrote on Pinboard's Twitter account, 'please start a meaningful internal conversation about giving people tools to scrub their behavioral data.'"

Could a Trump presidency ultimately lead to a massive public backlash against government surveillance?

16 of 412 comments (clear)

  1. I would recommend it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    I would recommend it. We are beginning to see the foreign agents, Marxist agitators and seditious dissidents lose their composure and come out of the woodwork. When the purges come, more surveillance means more of these scum get rounded up for re-education.

    Trump 2020!

    1. Re: I would recommend it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's not how the internet works holy crap what are you doing here?

  2. Yes! by Mitreya · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yes he will
    But so would have Clinton.

    1. Re:Yes! by markdavis · · Score: 5, Insightful

      +1 exactly.

      This is why so many of us are upset about the process. WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH CHOICE. We end up having to elect people based on conflicting single issues. But when both candidates share the same negatives, and surveillance is just one, you lose, regardless.

      There is ZERO doubt that Hilary Clinton would bring more surveillance. Same with Trump. She would have been all sneaky about it and probably lie about it too. He will more likely be loud and annoying about it.

    2. Re:Yes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      She should be in jail. She broke the law in ways that would have had the average person in jail for a very, very long time.

    3. Re:Yes! by Paul+Carver · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Clinton had a chance to win (and wasn't far from it, actually).

      If you have a means of visiting alternate universes and/or timelines then you correct. However, in this universe and this timeline you are incorrect. Clinton had zero chance to win as demonstrated by the fact that she didn't.

      Speculating on what would have happened if 100,000 people did something other than what they did is pointless. And you're making a big assumption in thinking that 100,000 people who didn't vote for Clinton would be happy if she won.

      I didn't want to Trump to win and didn't vote for him, but I'm glad Clinton lost. I certainly wouldn't have felt good if I learned I was the person who put her over the top. If Clinton had won it wouldn't have been the end of the world, and the world isn't going to end because Trump won either, but neither one of them deserves to claim that I voted for them. My vote counted and is reflected in the election results as part of the small but statistically significant percentage of the US population who took the time to go out to their polling place and register their belief that neither Trump nor Clinton are a worthy choice as president of the US.

      Unfortunately the polls don't distinguish between the opinions of "I think Hillary Clinton will be the best president ever" and "I think Hillary Clinton will be the worst president ever but I'm going to vote for her anyway" so I would say people with the second opinion threw away their vote by making it indistinguishable from people with the first opinion.

      Now, for someone who thinks that Hillary is fantastic but voted for someone they thought was just a tiny, tiny bit better, then maybe that wasn't a good choice. But for someone who thinks that Trump and Clinton are both horribly bad choices, voting for the one who is marginally less horrendous is not a rational course of action.

      What makes you think you can even claim that 100,000 people in Wisconsin were on the edge of choosing whether they loved Clinton more than the third party candidate they voted for?

      Maybe those 100,000 feel like the choice between Trump and Clinton is the choice between drinking out of a septic tank or out of the pre-treatment tank of a residential sewage treatment plant. Maybe they voted for drinking out of a clean mountain spring even though they new they'd end up drinking sewage one way or another. And maybe they're glad they didn't vote to drink sewage even if that's what they ended up with.

  3. There already should be public backlash... by blibbo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There already should be public backlash against government surveillance, Trump or no Trump.

    Because people (including government people) aren't good at keeping secrets and make too many assumptions.

    There's no question in my mind that the US government spends too much money and other resources on this stuff. If Trump is the straw that breaks the camel's back and causes enough resentment to actually change something post-Trump then so be it.

  4. Ow! My Balls! by Hognoxious · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Could a Trump presidency ultimately lead to a massive public backlash against government surveillance?

    Unlikely. All they care about is cat videos.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  5. Re:Funny how that works by Salo2112 · · Score: 3, Insightful
    The typical liberal is perfectly happy with concentrating power in the state - as long as they are running the state. This is why the American left thinks the right to keep and bear arms is not an individual right.

    >>...suggest President Obama begin "declassifying and dismantling as much of the federal government's unaccountable, secretive, mass surveillance state as he can -- before Trump is the one running it..

    When Obama got into power, I assumed he'd be the typical liberal. Little did I know he'd get very friendly with the expansion of the police state.

  6. Losing their minds by sycodon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Will a Trump Presidency cause Slashdot editors to lose their minds and post story after story on how a Trump Presidency will affect (insert pet cause here)

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
  7. Re:Funny how that works by haruchai · · Score: 5, Insightful

    >>...suggest President Obama begin "declassifying and dismantling as much of the federal government's unaccountable, secretive, mass surveillance state as he can -- before Trump is the one running it..

    When Obama got into power, I assumed he'd be the typical liberal. Little did I know he'd get very friendly with the expansion of the police state. He's enjoyed using the presidential powers at whim. Now that he's leaving, someone else gets to pick up the parts he so willingly put into place and use them.

    Should have thought of that before you put it into law eh there mr. president?

    The only way Obama could have been considered a liberal is if he was being compared to hardline conservative. Just because the GOP loudmouths were labeling him a socialist for months before he was elected didn't make it true.

    --
    Pain is merely failure leaving the body
  8. Re:Funny how that works by jbengt · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The typical person is perfectly happy with concentrating power in the state - as long as they are running the state.

    FTFY

  9. Can we even speculate? by fyngyrz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Clinton is of the same party, and has made a number of statements that align her closely with President Obama.

    President Obama (re)imposed the (un)PATRIOT(ic) act on the US; if that doesn't give you a guiding sense of where the party is, and very likely where Mrs. Clinton is in terms of invasive surveillance, imposition on personal liberty, and constitutional malfeasance, I don't know what would.

    Not to say President-elect Trump is likely to be any better, but inasmuch as his campaign was riddled with trivially disproved falsehoods, and in just the few days since the election, we've seen (at least) these radical pivots from him and/or his team...

    o Not getting rid of pre-existing conditions or the ACA as a whole;
    o Not dumping the banksters (met with them already to kill Dodd–Frank consumer protections)
    o Not cleaning house (already hiring the most in- of the in-movers and shakers and lobbyists, for his team)
    o Not actually building a wall, that was just figurative;
    o No special prosecutor for Clinton ("what a great campaign she ran!");
    o Making nice with President Obama after explicitly claiming he was the worst president ever;
    o The whole "no-ties with Russia" thing, oops, lots of ties, plus wikileaks admitted by the Russians now;
    o Going from "ultra-vet all Muslims at the border" to "we will not allow people in from terrorist regions"

    ...I don't see any way to associate his previously asserted goals with his actual intent. So I can't say he'd be any worse, either. The man is a policy cypher. A misogynist, xenophobic, sexist, rude, compulsive, racist, and frankly, none-too-bright policy-cypher with a grade school vocabulary and the rhetorical (lack of) skills of (at best) a 7th grader. Who knows what the heck he will do if the EC lets this farce come to fruition?

    What a weird set of circumstances.

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
  10. Nobody really knows what he'll do. by hey! · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Because he doesn't consider himself bound by his prior statements, and his supporters don't hold him to them.

    There are some things we know he won't do: build a border wall and make the Mexicans pay for it. There are other things we can be pretty sure he will do: lower taxes on the wealthiest people. But everything else will depend on how he feels that day.

    There's a reason both liberal AND conservatives don't like him, because he's basically unprincipled. But similar conversations are going on on both sides to the effect: maybe we can exploit some of this situation to our advantage.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  11. Russian hackers behnd the Florida election hack by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    Russian hackers were behind this years Florida voter registration website hack, and believed to be behind the "unnamed" voting machine vendor that was hacked.

    "Federal investigators believe Russian hackers were behind cyberattacks on a contractor for Florida's election system that may have exposed the personal data of Florida voters, according to US officials briefed on the probe. The hack of the Florida contractor comes on the heels of hacks in Illinois, in which personal data of tens of thousands of voters may have been stolen, and one in Arizona, in which investigators now believe the data of voters was likely exposed. "

    http://edition.cnn.com/2016/10/12/politics/florida-election-hack/

  12. he'll be a good boy by swell · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The cameras are gone, the show is over. He's now surrounded by people with urgent messages of dire need. They are concerned about trade, about national security, about oil, and about a popular revolt due to economic disparity.

    He will do what he's told to do.

    --
    ...omphaloskepsis often...