You definitely don't want to distribute iphones to your employees if they are criminals whose personal data you want to be completely accessible by the FBI during an investigation.
Yes there is a difference, but that doesn't make them mutually exclusive. It's like saying there's a huge difference between teachers and bankers, but that doesn't mean that a person can't be a banker and a teacher (e.g. a professor at a business school, etc).
Also, I'm not the one who brought up profiteering in relation to doctors without borders. That was someone else. My comment was a suggestion to make that persons example more realistic.
If you read the article, both Rubio and Cruz "acknowledged that backdoors cause great security concerns". That's two.
That's a false statement, because Ben Carson also acknowledged the security concerns of backdoors. You are part of the problem because you make false statements.
If you don't know, then isn't it better to stay silent and look a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt? They were doing debates so they couldn't stay silent, however saying something to the effect of I'm not fully informed yet but will make myself to be - or better yet (and preferrably in my opinion) consult professionals and make yourself informed.
I agree that this would be a good answer in theory. Unfortunately the reality is that to everyone else who also doesn't understand encryption, this answer would incorrectly make that candidate seem more uninformed by comparison. So I think there is a conscious or subconscious tendency not to give this answer, unless it is obvious that the other candidates are clueless as well.
That said, I basically don't see any tangible difference between the answer you proposed and the one he gave. The answer he gave clearly indicates he doesn't fully understand the subject, but he did offer some criteria of what he would like his solution to look like (i.e. being able to spy on ISIS without violating the constitutional rights of regular citizens), he just doesn't yet know how impractical that is.
I am also not endorsing Rubio, but on this issue he seems to be the only one that did their homework and came up with the right answer (or at least partial credit).
I think Apple should (and likely can be forced through court order to) comply with any requests to help the government decrypt data on their phones, provided they have a search warrant.
That said, Apple should have provided a way to encrypt the data in such a way that they can't be of much help if compelled to provide help to the government.
I don't have a problem with Apple helping the government crack weak passwords on the phones of terrorists. The only problem I would have is if the government prohibited Apple (or anyone) from putting good encryption into it's software. If you use a weak password, that's your own fault, and I hope the government + Apple succeeds in cracking your password if you are a terrorist.
I think both those statements are about equivalent in terms of not specifically prohibiting or weakening encryption through back doors, yet also implying a backdoor to anyone knowledgeable on the subject of encryption.
As a Bernie supporter, I can say that I am convinced that Rubio has a better and more educated stance on encryption by this article. That doesn't mean I don't think Bernie can't be educated (as Rubio clearly has been).
As for most issues, I think character and integrity matters. It is important to have all the facts and understand the issues, but it also takes character and integrity to make the right decision based on that understanding.
If simply paying lip service to the security concerns of backdoors meets your threshold, than it's not just Rubio and Cruz that pass this test. I think most of them do. For example:
"I think that Apple and probably a lot of other people don't necessarily trust the government these days. There is probably a very good reason for people not to trust the government" --Ben Carson
And if not from this specific article that collected these specific quotes, I'll bet you can find statements from nearly every candidate (possibly even trump) that will suggest that it is important to respect privacy. And then they will go on to suggest something resembling a backdoor for the Feds to monitor people.
I think so far every candidate has had pretty much the same position on encryption with the apparent exception of Rubio.
You state "Still voting for Bernie" as your subject and then go on to write an essay that has nothing to do with that argument (see non sequitur.)
I am unaware of any rule that states that your subject must encapsulate your entire post. In order for something to be a non-sequitur there must be an implicit or explicit sequitur.
Nothing about my response is about the credibility of Bernie or Trump. It is about the credibility of their supporters who regularly employ fallacies in the promotion of their preferred candidate.
I don't think you are doing a good job of logical fallacy assessment.
You then reply with an ad hominem when a comment comes pointing out that blind faith is troubling regardless of who is doing it.
An ad hominem attack is not simply saying something negative about a person. An ad hominem attack is when your argument is based in discrediting the person rather than a the idea itself. (e.g. building a big wall is a bad idea because it is what Trump wants to do). Saying "Trump is a racist asshole" by itself is not an ad hominem.
Furthermore, I am not opposed to the idea pointing out blind faith in general. I am objecting to your assessment of which faith is blind.
Support whoever you want, but please, use logic and reason instead of fallacy and emotion. If your guy takes a position that you would burn someone at the stake for, hold them to the same standard.
First of all Bernie did not take a stance that I would burn someone at the stake for. He took a position that to me indicates he is not knowledgeable on the subject. This is must be the part of my post that you did not comprehend and incorrectly dismissed as a non-sequitur.
Secondly, we are electing a president of a nation, not the encryption czar. If we should disqualify any candidate who holds any position we disagree with, all the candidates would be disqualified for the vast majority of voters. Of all the issues that matter to me in voting for a president, an issue that I'm pretty sure none of the candidates really understand (except *maybe* Rubio), is not high on my list of importance. It's like ranking toddlers on based on their understanding of Nietzsche.
The powers that are trying to "regulate" encryption will not be stopped without holding politicians feet to the fire. No one, Bern, Trump, etc gets a free pass on an abhorrent and technically disastrous policy. When you give a pass on a topic, you tell them that it is not important and this is one of the most important issues.
Can you not hold a politicians feet to the fire and not still vote for them? Because if we were to hold every candidates' feet to the fire on every one of the most important issues, it means we can't vote for anyone that's actually running.
Also, I disagree that it is one of the most important issues. It's important, but I'm not even sure it's in the top 10 for me.
We've had all sorts of laws banning guns in certain areas, banning certain types of guns, and banning guns for certain people. Requiring a background check to own a gun is already a serious impediment to owning a gun. Imagine if one required a background check to use encryption (i.e. math).
I suppose you could arrive at that conclusion if you could not discern any difference in credibility between Bernie and Trump. I think your comment says more about you than me.
This government is completely bought by corporations. Generally it's a pretty bad idea to jail the people that own you. Without their support, you will be out of power pretty quickly.
And then you keep reading Cruz's opinion and you get to the part "But, I think law enforcement has the better argument...."
One might say "I think pro life people have a really good argument, but I think the pro choice people have a better argument", and it would be easy to quote the "I think pro life people have a good argument" part to make them seem pro life. But it's not really fair to call them pro life, nor is it fair to even say they are both pro life and pro choice (i.e. because they like the arguments from both sides).
I agree that Rubio seems to have the best stance of the current field, but that's not saying much. Honestly I don't think any of them (except *maybe* Rubio) even understand how encryption works. I would hope that any of these candidates, should they become president, would put more effort into gaining a better understanding of encryption before making any consequential decisions. I think one can be excused for not having a good answer for a question about a complicated technology especially in a debate format where answers need to be in 30 second sound bytes.
I think if phrased in the language of "We don't put bad mathematics in American textbooks to hedge against terrorists that might read it", we could maybe help the American people and politicians understand what they are dealing with.
As tragic as the deaths from terrorism are, it's not clear that making all our encryption insecure via backdoors will be a good trade off for some if any reduction in terrorism. There is a very real possibility that we would be causing more deaths and other harm from preventable security breaches.
Even if some new advancement in cryptography allowed us to have vastly more secure backdoors, (after all the Turing Awards were handed out) it would still not be clear that we *should* give this power to the government, given their history of abuse of their powers and oversight evasion.
I don't expect every politician to be an expert on every subject, especially encryption. This is where I think character and integrity plays a big role for me.
I wouldn't say that I trust Marco Rubio to stick to any position if the circumstances changed, and I can't say that I trust his judgement in general. But kudos to him for having the best answer at least currently.
That's like saying safes are tools to hide criminal activity, and therefore Safe company X should manufacture safes in a way where they can be unlocked by an FBI master key.
1. Forcing a particular company to manufacture insecure safes does not force criminals to use those safes. They can easily just use any other safe that is not insecure.
2. This existence of an FBI master key makes these safes vulnerable to anyone who possesses a copy of that key whether they are the FBI or a Russian hacker.
The math for secure encryption is public knowledge. The US government can't make this information unknowable. Getting Apple to use an insecure crypto system, simply forces criminals to switch to secure ones.
Encryption is math. How are we going to prevent terrorists from using math? I'm sure the ability for the terrorists to use math also degrades the abilities of intelligence agencies too. Forcing Apple and Google to sell phones without the wrong math on them doesn't stop terrorists from using the right math.
Sure, if we could effectively ban terrorists from using math, that would be great, but we can't. Making it harder for regular citizens to easily use math doesn't really stop the terrorists from using it.
No one is talking about making cars illegal because terrorists use cars. Why is that?
Do we know it's just a pin number and not a password? I am not familiar with iPhone, but on android you can lock your phone with a long ass password that would not be easily brute forced.
That's not cracking the encryption. That's called guessing an easy password (or combination). Obviously I can "crack" the world's most secure safe, if I can guess the password easily. My point was that a secure safe and a secure crypto system share the same feature that the inventor of the system does not have an advantage at cracking the system. The best they can do is brute force it like everyone else (i.e. cutting torches, or guessing passwords)
Slashdot Mirror
You definitely don't want to distribute iphones to your employees if they are criminals whose personal data you want to be completely accessible by the FBI during an investigation.
Yes there is a difference, but that doesn't make them mutually exclusive. It's like saying there's a huge difference between teachers and bankers, but that doesn't mean that a person can't be a banker and a teacher (e.g. a professor at a business school, etc).
Also, I'm not the one who brought up profiteering in relation to doctors without borders. That was someone else. My comment was a suggestion to make that persons example more realistic.
Depends on what you are referring to.
Except that doctors don't get the money from medicine sales. Maybe you should change your example to Hospitals or pharmaceutical companies.
Kind of like how doctors without borders brags about how much medicine they give out during humanitarian crises.
Bullshit! He was essentially an employee and deserves healthcare and a 401K!
If you read the article, both Rubio and Cruz "acknowledged that backdoors cause great security concerns". That's two.
That's a false statement, because Ben Carson also acknowledged the security concerns of backdoors. You are part of the problem because you make false statements.
If you don't know, then isn't it better to stay silent and look a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt? They were doing debates so they couldn't stay silent, however saying something to the effect of I'm not fully informed yet but will make myself to be - or better yet (and preferrably in my opinion) consult professionals and make yourself informed.
I agree that this would be a good answer in theory. Unfortunately the reality is that to everyone else who also doesn't understand encryption, this answer would incorrectly make that candidate seem more uninformed by comparison. So I think there is a conscious or subconscious tendency not to give this answer, unless it is obvious that the other candidates are clueless as well.
That said, I basically don't see any tangible difference between the answer you proposed and the one he gave. The answer he gave clearly indicates he doesn't fully understand the subject, but he did offer some criteria of what he would like his solution to look like (i.e. being able to spy on ISIS without violating the constitutional rights of regular citizens), he just doesn't yet know how impractical that is.
I am also not endorsing Rubio, but on this issue he seems to be the only one that did their homework and came up with the right answer (or at least partial credit).
I think Apple should (and likely can be forced through court order to) comply with any requests to help the government decrypt data on their phones, provided they have a search warrant.
That said, Apple should have provided a way to encrypt the data in such a way that they can't be of much help if compelled to provide help to the government.
I don't have a problem with Apple helping the government crack weak passwords on the phones of terrorists. The only problem I would have is if the government prohibited Apple (or anyone) from putting good encryption into it's software. If you use a weak password, that's your own fault, and I hope the government + Apple succeeds in cracking your password if you are a terrorist.
LOL. Sure, but I think he still passed the Turing test, so I give him credit for that.
I think both those statements are about equivalent in terms of not specifically prohibiting or weakening encryption through back doors, yet also implying a backdoor to anyone knowledgeable on the subject of encryption.
As a Bernie supporter, I can say that I am convinced that Rubio has a better and more educated stance on encryption by this article. That doesn't mean I don't think Bernie can't be educated (as Rubio clearly has been).
As for most issues, I think character and integrity matters. It is important to have all the facts and understand the issues, but it also takes character and integrity to make the right decision based on that understanding.
"I think that Apple and probably a lot of other people don't necessarily trust the government these days. There is probably a very good reason for people not to trust the government" --Ben Carson
And if not from this specific article that collected these specific quotes, I'll bet you can find statements from nearly every candidate (possibly even trump) that will suggest that it is important to respect privacy. And then they will go on to suggest something resembling a backdoor for the Feds to monitor people.
I think so far every candidate has had pretty much the same position on encryption with the apparent exception of Rubio.
You state "Still voting for Bernie" as your subject and then go on to write an essay that has nothing to do with that argument (see non sequitur.)
I am unaware of any rule that states that your subject must encapsulate your entire post. In order for something to be a non-sequitur there must be an implicit or explicit sequitur.
Nothing about my response is about the credibility of Bernie or Trump. It is about the credibility of their supporters who regularly employ fallacies in the promotion of their preferred candidate.
I don't think you are doing a good job of logical fallacy assessment.
You then reply with an ad hominem when a comment comes pointing out that blind faith is troubling regardless of who is doing it.
An ad hominem attack is not simply saying something negative about a person. An ad hominem attack is when your argument is based in discrediting the person rather than a the idea itself. (e.g. building a big wall is a bad idea because it is what Trump wants to do). Saying "Trump is a racist asshole" by itself is not an ad hominem.
Furthermore, I am not opposed to the idea pointing out blind faith in general. I am objecting to your assessment of which faith is blind.
Support whoever you want, but please, use logic and reason instead of fallacy and emotion. If your guy takes a position that you would burn someone at the stake for, hold them to the same standard.
First of all Bernie did not take a stance that I would burn someone at the stake for. He took a position that to me indicates he is not knowledgeable on the subject. This is must be the part of my post that you did not comprehend and incorrectly dismissed as a non-sequitur.
Secondly, we are electing a president of a nation, not the encryption czar. If we should disqualify any candidate who holds any position we disagree with, all the candidates would be disqualified for the vast majority of voters. Of all the issues that matter to me in voting for a president, an issue that I'm pretty sure none of the candidates really understand (except *maybe* Rubio), is not high on my list of importance. It's like ranking toddlers on based on their understanding of Nietzsche.
The powers that are trying to "regulate" encryption will not be stopped without holding politicians feet to the fire. No one, Bern, Trump, etc gets a free pass on an abhorrent and technically disastrous policy. When you give a pass on a topic, you tell them that it is not important and this is one of the most important issues.
Can you not hold a politicians feet to the fire and not still vote for them? Because if we were to hold every candidates' feet to the fire on every one of the most important issues, it means we can't vote for anyone that's actually running.
Also, I disagree that it is one of the most important issues. It's important, but I'm not even sure it's in the top 10 for me.
We've had all sorts of laws banning guns in certain areas, banning certain types of guns, and banning guns for certain people. Requiring a background check to own a gun is already a serious impediment to owning a gun. Imagine if one required a background check to use encryption (i.e. math).
No one dares talking about making guns illegal? What planet do you live on? We talk about it every time there is a high profile shooting.
I suppose you could arrive at that conclusion if you could not discern any difference in credibility between Bernie and Trump. I think your comment says more about you than me.
This government is completely bought by corporations. Generally it's a pretty bad idea to jail the people that own you. Without their support, you will be out of power pretty quickly.
They are a powerful corporation in a country run by corporations. I think they'll be fine.
And then you keep reading Cruz's opinion and you get to the part "But, I think law enforcement has the better argument...."
One might say "I think pro life people have a really good argument, but I think the pro choice people have a better argument", and it would be easy to quote the "I think pro life people have a good argument" part to make them seem pro life. But it's not really fair to call them pro life, nor is it fair to even say they are both pro life and pro choice (i.e. because they like the arguments from both sides).
I agree that Rubio seems to have the best stance of the current field, but that's not saying much. Honestly I don't think any of them (except *maybe* Rubio) even understand how encryption works. I would hope that any of these candidates, should they become president, would put more effort into gaining a better understanding of encryption before making any consequential decisions. I think one can be excused for not having a good answer for a question about a complicated technology especially in a debate format where answers need to be in 30 second sound bytes.
I think if phrased in the language of "We don't put bad mathematics in American textbooks to hedge against terrorists that might read it", we could maybe help the American people and politicians understand what they are dealing with.
As tragic as the deaths from terrorism are, it's not clear that making all our encryption insecure via backdoors will be a good trade off for some if any reduction in terrorism. There is a very real possibility that we would be causing more deaths and other harm from preventable security breaches.
Even if some new advancement in cryptography allowed us to have vastly more secure backdoors, (after all the Turing Awards were handed out) it would still not be clear that we *should* give this power to the government, given their history of abuse of their powers and oversight evasion.
I don't expect every politician to be an expert on every subject, especially encryption. This is where I think character and integrity plays a big role for me.
I wouldn't say that I trust Marco Rubio to stick to any position if the circumstances changed, and I can't say that I trust his judgement in general. But kudos to him for having the best answer at least currently.
That's like saying safes are tools to hide criminal activity, and therefore Safe company X should manufacture safes in a way where they can be unlocked by an FBI master key.
1. Forcing a particular company to manufacture insecure safes does not force criminals to use those safes. They can easily just use any other safe that is not insecure.
2. This existence of an FBI master key makes these safes vulnerable to anyone who possesses a copy of that key whether they are the FBI or a Russian hacker.
The math for secure encryption is public knowledge. The US government can't make this information unknowable. Getting Apple to use an insecure crypto system, simply forces criminals to switch to secure ones.
Encryption is math. How are we going to prevent terrorists from using math? I'm sure the ability for the terrorists to use math also degrades the abilities of intelligence agencies too. Forcing Apple and Google to sell phones without the wrong math on them doesn't stop terrorists from using the right math.
Sure, if we could effectively ban terrorists from using math, that would be great, but we can't. Making it harder for regular citizens to easily use math doesn't really stop the terrorists from using it.
No one is talking about making cars illegal because terrorists use cars. Why is that?
Do we know it's just a pin number and not a password? I am not familiar with iPhone, but on android you can lock your phone with a long ass password that would not be easily brute forced.
I was responding to the claim that safe manufacturers can unlock their own safes with cutting torches.
That's not cracking the encryption. That's called guessing an easy password (or combination). Obviously I can "crack" the world's most secure safe, if I can guess the password easily. My point was that a secure safe and a secure crypto system share the same feature that the inventor of the system does not have an advantage at cracking the system. The best they can do is brute force it like everyone else (i.e. cutting torches, or guessing passwords)