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.
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...