Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by EditorDavid on from the looking-for-bad-hombres dept.

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?

9 of 412 comments (clear)

  1. Funny how that works by IWantMoreSpamPlease · · Score: 5, Interesting

    >>...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?

    --
    So rise up, all ye lost ones, as one, we'll claw the clouds.
    1. Re:Funny how that works by ooloorie · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You say "typical liberal" as if that's a genuine belief system and not just a storytelling style designed to persuade a specific subculture.

      We really need some indication for distinguishing US "liberal" from actual "liberal" in discussions. US "liberals" jettisoned economic liberalism a century ago, and have gradually shed personal and social liberalism over the last half century. US "liberalism" has become some kind of authoritarian technocratic progressive welfare state; it is the antithesis of actual liberalism.

    2. Re:Funny how that works by Feral+Nerd · · Score: 4, Interesting

      By any measure Obama is center-left. That said, he did deport more illegal immigrants than his predecessor, he did not close Gitmo, and he kept executing wars of aggression against other countries.

      Still, let's review this quote from TFA: "I think many Americans are waking up to the fact we have created a presidency that is too powerful,"

      I think that was true already even before Obama was president. But, of course much of the debate stopped because the ones making this argument liked Obama and his center-left policies. If electing Trump keeps this debate going that is a good thing - but I suspect most people are just in opposition because their candidate lost, and would not be discussing it if Clinton had been elected.

      By any US American standard Obama is center-left, in Europe he'd be center right to moderate conservative. Just about the only US leftie I can point out that would register with a European as a moderate Social Democrat is Bernie Sanders and he scared the whits out of the so-called leftist Democrat party with his beliefs. By European standards vast sections of the Republican party bring back unpleasant memories of fascism and witch-burning 17th century protestant fundamentalists.

  2. Re:Yes! by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Trump likes digging up dirt on people and threatened to put his political rival in jail (let's see if he was lying). This is exactly what people were warning about.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  3. Without a doubt by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Plus, they are one state away from having enough power to add or delete amendments to the Constitution. There is no way to stop them as they now control how votes and whose votes are counted.

    I'm sure there are a ton of good people in this country, but like in this election, they will continue to do nothing.This grand experiment in democracy is over and no one is coming to the rescue.

  4. No they didn't, did completely by raymorris · · Score: 4, Interesting

    They didn't contradict themselves; they *certainly* did. :)

    Seriously though I took it as not contradictory meaning:
    --
    We can only speculate.
    I'm willing to speculate that she almost certainly would have.
    --

    She's actually been in politics, observable by the public, since 1977. In those 39 years, she has manifested a belief that the elites like her are better than common plebes. No more reason they shouldn't watch us than a parent shouldn't watch a six year old; based on what her view seems to be.

    Trump's public life has been all about drumming up publicity for his buildings and his brand, not about policy. I doubt he's thought much about public policy at all. He DOES have a huge ego. Such a big ego that he thinks a) he should be president and b) most of America will agree he should be president. Unfortunately all presidents have that megalomania.

  5. Re:Yes! by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1, Interesting

    > The extent and type of surveillance that a Clinton administration would undertake is speculation at this point,

    I'm afraid that former Secretary Clinton's party beliefs have been fairly clear, we saw them during her husband's administration. We also saw, with her email on a private server, that she's willing to ignore existing law, basic security practice, and a concern for setting safe precedents for IT in the name of political expediency.

    I expect Mr. Trump to be _much worse_ because he's a political "big vision" leader, who squanders enormous resources on theater, and he is personally and professionally addicted to gambling with _enormous_ stakes in the name of his visions. That is not safe for IT, and it's not safe for handling surveillance policy, civil rights, or the enormous amounts of personal data accessible with or without warrants in the USA.

  6. Re:Yes! by Opportunist · · Score: 1, Interesting

    At least 6 million people would disagree that it's gonna pass...

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  7. Re:Yes! by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 3, Interesting

    > She was being practical and mistakeingly cut a few corners. No real harm was done,

    As an IT professional who handles confidential data, and data security, that act was not "cutting a few corners". The leaks show that she was using the private server for direct activity as the Secretary of State as a matter of course. I've helped fire people who were pulling such abuses, especially for sensitive data such as HIPAA protected medical documentation or FERPA protected educational records.

    Like failing to scrub a computer for handing it over to another employee, or leaving your passphrases on sticky pads on your desk, it's a very foolish and normally unnecessary act. Please don't ignore the very real misbehavior revealed by these leaks and charges.

    That said, the woman is _far_ less dangerous than Mr. Trump, whose insistence on gambling at every level of personal and professional life is legendary and constitutes a _much_ larger danger.