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?
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?
Yes he will
But so would have Clinton.
>>...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.
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.
Unlikely. All they care about is cat videos.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
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.
It might be possible that a group at the NSA with lots of funding, a few smart people and little to no oversight leaked the Podesta emails. They have access to computers in botnets in Russia and Eastern Europe. They certainly have the hacking skills. They have the language skills. People in the intelligence community might not be big Hillary supporters.
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.
I'm taking the Climate Change denier position on the surveillance state.
1. There's no real proof that there is ubiquitous surveillance.
2. If if there was real proof of ubiquitous surveillance, there's no real proof that it's a bad thing.
3. Anyway, it's too late to stop ubiquitous surveillance, so there's no point in trying.
4, Ubiquitous surveillance might actually be good for us.
5. All the privacy advocates are just in it for the money.
You are welcome on my lawn.
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.
Clinton voted to invade Afghanistan and we wrecked that country - even more so than it was before, which is quite a feat.
She voted to invade Iraq and we wrecked that country - killing hundreds of thousands of civilians directly and indirectly.
She recommended invading Libya and we ruined that country.
Her next step would be military intervention in Syria. Because we have had such a good track record over there.
What's your definition of psychopathy?
My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
It looks like you and GP disagree, but you both bring up good points.
> The typical liberal is perfectly happy with concentrating power in the state - as long as they are running the state
Indeed. I posted here many times years ago reminding them that allowing President Clinton and then President Obama more amd more power meant that President Palin or President Trump would have more power soon. The nanny state doesn't seem so attractive when the nanny isn't someone you like.
> When Obama got into power, I assumed he'd be the typical liberal. Little did I know
Little did any of us know what any president would do. Conservatives and moderates were terribly disappointed in Bush Jr. As governor of Texas, Texas Democrats praised him for being so bipartisan, bringing people together. Informed people were surprised that damn movie actor elected in 1980 ended up being such an effective president. For those too young to remember, Reagan was a bit like electing Robert Pattison or Justin Bieber president, 36 years later every Republican claims to be the next Reagan. The friggin movie star ended up being THE great Republican president of a century.
The point is, trying to predict what a President's term will be like ahead of time is a fool's errand. We're always wrong, frequently very, very wrong. Trump even more so - he's never even thought about, much less articulated, public policy through his life. Just in the last few months he's made some comments, but as explained in his books those comments are calculated to get free press, they don't mean anything. He's been trolling CNN is all. What we've heard from him over the years is him drumming up publicity for his business, while believing that "any publicity is good publicity". What will he do on issue X? He has no idea, so certainly we don't know.
That's not how the internet works holy crap what are you doing here?
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"
What a weird set of circumstances.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
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.
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...
It is bothersome to me that he seems to have unconditional support at the moment from many.
With the Second Amendment in place, its going to be difficult to take any others away.
Have gnu, will travel.
Better hop over to 4chan and grab some copies of Melania's pics before they are gone.
Have gnu, will travel.
That would be the one he bought, sold, bought back for $100 million, then sold ten years later for $1.8 billion.
Mr. Trump most certainly has his weaknesses. Unlike most presidential candidates, he has flaunted his arrogance. He also has his strengths.
He's unique amongst all the presidents of our lifetime in that he's not beholden to the people who financed his campaign. Mrs. Clinton, for example, was financed primarily by Wall Street banks. They pay her, she essentially works for them. A Trump presidency will be very interesting. Maybe bad, maybe good, probably some good and some bad - but definitely different.
I recommend it, too. Bad enough that the uneducated white men ruined the country once. They need to be watched. These people are just weird. Would they have voted for someone else they might have gotten federally funded universities without tuition that currently causes crippling debt. That would give them and their children the opportunity to take part in the modern labor market. No matter how many tax cuts and isolationist BS Trump & Co pull off, those manufacturing jobs don't come back. Where would they go? In factories that were left crumbling since 80's Reagonomics killed off US labor? And even if, how are goods and materials moved when the infrastructure is crumbling? Gee...seems as if not only Flint has too much lead in the drinking water....
He built a $2 billion dollar business empire
If Trump's business empire is only worth $2 billion, instead of the $4 billion that he claims, then he's an even worse businessman than we thought. Starting with $200 million 40 years ago, $2 billion now would be far below average for the stock market, whereas $4 billion is only slightly below average.
Hey, the odds said that if it wasn't Trump, it'd be Clinton. We were in for hell, we just are simply in a slightly different location in the toasty abyss.
When the government decides to come after our rights, they won't do so directly. The UCMJ requires that all troops must disobey illegal orders, so there won't be a standoff between the public and troops. What will happen is that the politicians will decide to have the local cops 'stand down' in the face of political unrest. They will retreat to protect city hall and the precincts and let rioters attack targets of their discontent. And the rest of us will be left to fend for ourselves.
Google 'Roof Koreans'.
Have gnu, will travel.
While it is fair to blame uneducated white men (who apparently voted heavily for Trump) there is enough blame to go around.
How about the educated white (and nonwhite) folks who stayed home because they'd "feel awful voting for Clinton after Bernie"? Or who threw away their vote on a third party candidate? Or who couldn't be bothered to vote because the polls showed that Clinton would win without their vote?
Clinton won the popular vote and she lost the electoral majority by razor thin margins. Everybody who just "couldn't vote for her" despite despising Trump: Congratulations! You got what you deserve. Unfortunately, the majority of the voters did not get what they deserve.