5 ms·

You seem to have left the fact that Hillary Clinton also ruled out backdoors last night. That is quite a significant statement in my opinion.

spinchange 11y ago
She called for a Manhattan-like project to give law enforcement exceptional access without breaking encryption because "maybe the back door is not the right door." Hardly a ringing endorsement for privacy!
kabdib 11y ago
We hear a lot of things from candidates. But something seems to happen to frosh presidents that makes them go all squishy when it comes to screwing with the natsec apparatus, something more tangible than just the usual collection of forgotten campaign promises. Something more effective than a simple "Four Horsemen" briefing that the CIA/NSA/ETC dust off every fourth January. On the other hand, politicians are snakes and will say anything to get elected. So there's that.
- marcoperaza 11y ago
  It's easy to sit behind a computer or on a debate stage and repeat trite aphorisms like "we can't trade our privacy for security". It's very different when you are personally responsible for the security of not only 300 million Americans, but of the entire world. When you get briefings every day about the activity of people and organizations who will do everything that they can to kill as many innocent people as possible.
nickysielicki 11y ago
That's political doublespeak. No one is going to sit up on a stage and say that they think "backdoors" are a good idea. But if you've been paying attention the past few months, when they're not on stage, both Hillary and Obama have been calling for key escrow. To think she's changed from that while still using the same exact statement of, "Silicon Valley geniuses are going to come around and be our Manhattan project" is wrong.
fivre 11y ago
Backdoors aside, I'm wary of what the proposed Manhattan project would be without specifics. Without details it sounds like a continuation or expansion of the current NSA bulk surveillance programs, which while not explicit encryption backdoors themselves (Dual EC aside), are not an ideal solution.

spinchange 11y ago

She called for a Manhattan-like project to give law enforcement exceptional access without breaking encryption because "maybe the back door is not the right door." Hardly a ringing endorsement for privacy!

kabdib 11y ago

We hear a lot of things from candidates. But something seems to happen to frosh presidents that makes them go all squishy when it comes to screwing with the natsec apparatus, something more tangible than just the usual collection of forgotten campaign promises. Something more effective than a simple "Four Horsemen" briefing that the CIA/NSA/ETC dust off every fourth January. On the other hand, politicians are snakes and will say anything to get elected. So there's that.

marcoperaza 11y ago
It's easy to sit behind a computer or on a debate stage and repeat trite aphorisms like "we can't trade our privacy for security". It's very different when you are personally responsible for the security of not only 300 million Americans, but of the entire world. When you get briefings every day about the activity of people and organizations who will do everything that they can to kill as many innocent people as possible.

nickysielicki 11y ago

That's political doublespeak. No one is going to sit up on a stage and say that they think "backdoors" are a good idea. But if you've been paying attention the past few months, when they're not on stage, both Hillary and Obama have been calling for key escrow. To think she's changed from that while still using the same exact statement of, "Silicon Valley geniuses are going to come around and be our Manhattan project" is wrong.

fivre 11y ago

Backdoors aside, I'm wary of what the proposed Manhattan project would be without specifics. Without details it sounds like a continuation or expansion of the current NSA bulk surveillance programs, which while not explicit encryption backdoors themselves (Dual EC aside), are not an ideal solution.