6 ms·

> Hillary Clinton actively campaigned at Saturday’s debate for a “Manhattan-like project” to break encryption. Fight this now, tech industry. It doesn't matter

by pdkl95 11y ago

> Hillary Clinton actively campaigned at Saturday’s debate for a “Manhattan-like project” to break encryption. Fight this now, tech industry. It doesn't matter how stupid the idea is; those are fighting words.

javajosh 11y ago
I don't get it; why doesn't it matter how stupid the idea is? If she wanted to have a Manhattan project for perpetual motion machines it would be harmless, right? (And from a Keynsian standpoint it would be better than harmless since she'd be injecting money into the economy, having physicists and engineers doing the equivalent of digging trenches and filling them in.)
- jlangenauer 11y ago
  Because the idea could ultimately be backed by the force of violence in the state. E.g. You will use weak encyption in your product, or we will take your money, your company or even your freedom.
- existencebox 11y ago
  This is a candidate to ostensibly lead a world superpower over the next 4-8 years. Simply having the mindset of desiring to ban or hamstring encryption (or build perpetual motion machines) is indicative of far greater issues (likely in that domain, which we as tech-citizens should be aware of and active against) than merely chasing dragons would imply.
- pdkl95 11y ago
  The #1 problem when technical people consider politics and law: they expect it to follow any sense of logic. That is a threat to the tech industry, as part of the ongoing campaign to paint tech companies as "selfish and unreasonable" or even "aiding terrorists" in the public eye. At no point is any kind of "Manhattan project" actually intended. That's just a clever talking point used to frame encryption for the general public. The long-term message for tech companies is "stop challenging our power and authority". Encryption represents a power shift, which is something the people used to having that power cannot allow. Their traditional weapon is the power to control the framing of any topic. The end game isn't breaking encryption. If the tech industry doesn't submit to the demands for a backdoor, the tech industry will be declared the enemy. If the economy related to the internet and encryption crashed (which can always be accomplished with punitive regulation), the power situation is improved form the perspective of traditional politicians. If they want to survive in anything like their current form, internet corporations should be fighting this hard to counter the framing in the public eye. Spending a few hundred million (or even a few billion) spent on media campaigns to make people want encryption is preferable to being forced to implement backdoors and watching entire markets dry up.
  - cinquemb 11y ago
    I don't see why they just cant keep subverting encryption through all the usual suspects (vulns, social engineering, etc…). The whole encryption debate just seems like silly posturing on the part of company/ngo's officials and governments… especially since all of the aforementioned still want to use their shiny new tech products.
    - pdkl95 11y ago
      Why? Because this isn't just about encryption! Crypto is just the current attack strategy. Technology in general has moved a lot of power away from government to the big players in the tech industry. An easy example is the somewhat-recent articles[1] about the political power that Facebook has with their ability to influence people... and influence elections. Obviously, Google could do the same. This shift in power is what scares people who's only goal is to be re-elected. Therefor, they see internet corporations like Facebook and Google - and by extension most of the tech industry to varying degrees - as the enemy. [1] http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2014-11-04/how-facebook-hopes-to-influence-the-election http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2014-11-04/how-fa...
      - cinquemb 11y ago
        >Technology in general has moved a lot of power away from government to the big players in the tech industry. Really? I think companies and governments seem to work together pretty well just looking at all of legislation that has passed recently and all the secret agreements made in secret courts in order to have access to data from companies like Facebook and Google, that the public has been made aware of that happen. >This shift in power is what scares people who's only goal is to be re-elected. Or people are trying to muster of some sense of fear in people order to gain support, they themselves aren't scared because as you say they are using it as a political tool to get elected…
  - javajosh 11y ago
    Okay, I think I get it. It's not the project that concerns you, it's the attitude behind it, and what that attitude implies about future action unrelated to this ridiculous "Manhattan Project". I get it, but I think we have to wait until those future actions actually happen to get serious. Partly it's because I don't necessarily believe that your narrative is correct - I think there's a great deal of real, legitimate ignorance about this technology, and that this will dispel in time. (Don't forget that Clinton is an old woman, who's made her career in a distinctly non-technical area. Do you really expect your grandma to understand things like PKI? Alas that there are no scientists or engineers in the field.)
dragontamer 11y ago
Ignorant article writes fighting words to click-bait readers. I listen to CSPAN every day, and heard Clinton say these words. Read the Washington Post criticism on this issue, which was more balanced. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2015/12/22/clinton-and-trump-are-looking-for-an-easy-out-on-the-internet-dont-give-it-to-them/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2015/12/22... Or even better, listen to Clinton so that you get the story straight from the horse's mouth. To see the game of "telephone" amplifying wtfs throughout the echochaimber bothers me severely. The technology exists to get your news directly from the source. Why do you need a reporter from Vice to tell you what your opinion should be on something Clinton said? Why don't you just listen to what Clinton said herself, and then make an opinion? At worst, Clinton simply demonstrated her extreme ignorance on this issue. She has no idea how encryption works, and was just saying words. She knows enough that she doesn't want to "break" encryption however, she's simply calling for computer scientists to think about the issue.
- pdkl95 11y ago
  What "telephone" game - the "straight from the horse's mouth" version (which I read yesterday) includes a direct threat to the tech industry. > Clinton simply demonstrated her extreme ignorance The first Crypto War over the Clipper Chip and years of key escrow debate was part of Bill Clinton's administration. There probability that Hillary Clinton being "extremely ignorant" about encryption is laughably small. > calling for computer scientists to think about the issue She knew what the computer scientist position was 15-20 years ago.
  - dragontamer 11y ago
    Okay, here's the full debate transcript on what Clinton said. I don't see any issue, aside from Clinton's wish-washyness and clear ignorance on this subject. She understands that "Apple and Tech Experts" are angry about this issue, but she clearly doesn't understand why. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/democratic-debate-transcript-clinton-sanders-omalley-in-new-hampshire/ http://www.cbsnews.com/news/democratic-debate-transcript-cli... > CLINTON: I would not want to go to that point. I would hope that, given the extraordinary capacities that the tech community has and the legitimate needs and questions from law enforcement, that there could be a Manhattan-like project, something that would bring the government and the tech communities together to see they're not adversaries, they've got to be partners. > It doesn't do anybody any good if terrorists can move toward encrypted communication that no law enforcement agency can break into before or after. There must be some way. I don't know enough about the technology,Martha, to be able to say what it is, but I have a lot of confidence in our tech experts. > And maybe the back door is the wrong door, and I understand what Apple and others are saying about that. But I also understand, when a law enforcement official charged with the responsibility of preventing attacks -- to go back to our early questions, how do we prevent attacks -- well, if we can't know what someone is planning, we are going to have to rely on the neighbor or, you know, the member of the mosque or the teacher, somebody to see something. > CLINTON: I just think there's got to be a way, and I would hope that our tech companies would work with government to figure that out. Otherwise, law enforcement is blind -- blind before, blind during, and, unfortunately, in many instances, blind after. > So we always have to balance liberty and security, privacy and safety, but I know that law enforcement needs the tools to keep us safe. And that's what i hope, there can be some understanding and cooperation to achieve. ---------- I would like it for my politicians to understand technical issues, alas I've resigned myself to the fact that politicians really don't know what they are talking about. And all Clinton has done here is prove once more, that she doesn't know what she's talking about. Anyone who knows this issue (ie: You and Me) both know that there is a direct contradiction in Clinton's speech here. She's either playing dumb, or is dumb about this issue. And the rest of the reporters (Vice, Intercept, etc. etc.) are going crazy as if this is some existential threat on the internet. No, in my opinion, this is simply another presidential candidate trying to be vague about an issue they don't fully understand.
vox_mollis 11y ago
You do realize that you* SF people have been voting in DiFi for years, who has been actively stumping for undermining encryption on behalf of law enforcement jackboots far longer than Clinton, right? Silicon Valley is shooting itself in the foot, willingly. *: "you" as in the Northern California / Tech Industry electorate, not you individually.
- mattmcclure 11y ago
  In case others didn't understand the DiFi reference, it's Senator Dianne Feinstein, not to be confused with the "Agency for Public Management and eGovernment" (https://www.difi.no/om-difi/about-difi https://www.difi.no/om-difi/about-difi) :) Yes, politicians and politics is a cesspool of unfortunate sadness. No, this doesn't mean we shouldn't still be upset when the most likely presidential candidate takes a stance like this.

by pdkl95 11y ago

javajosh 11y ago

I don't get it; why doesn't it matter how stupid the idea is? If she wanted to have a Manhattan project for perpetual motion machines it would be harmless, right? (And from a Keynsian standpoint it would be better than harmless since she'd be injecting money into the economy, having physicists and engineers doing the equivalent of digging trenches and filling them in.)

jlangenauer 11y ago
Because the idea could ultimately be backed by the force of violence in the state. E.g. You will use weak encyption in your product, or we will take your money, your company or even your freedom.
existencebox 11y ago
This is a candidate to ostensibly lead a world superpower over the next 4-8 years. Simply having the mindset of desiring to ban or hamstring encryption (or build perpetual motion machines) is indicative of far greater issues (likely in that domain, which we as tech-citizens should be aware of and active against) than merely chasing dragons would imply.
pdkl95 11y ago
The #1 problem when technical people consider politics and law: they expect it to follow any sense of logic. That is a threat to the tech industry, as part of the ongoing campaign to paint tech companies as "selfish and unreasonable" or even "aiding terrorists" in the public eye. At no point is any kind of "Manhattan project" actually intended. That's just a clever talking point used to frame encryption for the general public. The long-term message for tech companies is "stop challenging our power and authority". Encryption represents a power shift, which is something the people used to having that power cannot allow. Their traditional weapon is the power to control the framing of any topic. The end game isn't breaking encryption. If the tech industry doesn't submit to the demands for a backdoor, the tech industry will be declared the enemy. If the economy related to the internet and encryption crashed (which can always be accomplished with punitive regulation), the power situation is improved form the perspective of traditional politicians. If they want to survive in anything like their current form, internet corporations should be fighting this hard to counter the framing in the public eye. Spending a few hundred million (or even a few billion) spent on media campaigns to make people want encryption is preferable to being forced to implement backdoors and watching entire markets dry up.
- cinquemb 11y ago
  I don't see why they just cant keep subverting encryption through all the usual suspects (vulns, social engineering, etc…). The whole encryption debate just seems like silly posturing on the part of company/ngo's officials and governments… especially since all of the aforementioned still want to use their shiny new tech products.
  - pdkl95 11y ago
    Why? Because this isn't just about encryption! Crypto is just the current attack strategy. Technology in general has moved a lot of power away from government to the big players in the tech industry. An easy example is the somewhat-recent articles[1] about the political power that Facebook has with their ability to influence people... and influence elections. Obviously, Google could do the same. This shift in power is what scares people who's only goal is to be re-elected. Therefor, they see internet corporations like Facebook and Google - and by extension most of the tech industry to varying degrees - as the enemy. [1] http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2014-11-04/how-facebook-hopes-to-influence-the-election http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2014-11-04/how-fa...
    - cinquemb 11y ago
      >Technology in general has moved a lot of power away from government to the big players in the tech industry. Really? I think companies and governments seem to work together pretty well just looking at all of legislation that has passed recently and all the secret agreements made in secret courts in order to have access to data from companies like Facebook and Google, that the public has been made aware of that happen. >This shift in power is what scares people who's only goal is to be re-elected. Or people are trying to muster of some sense of fear in people order to gain support, they themselves aren't scared because as you say they are using it as a political tool to get elected…
- javajosh 11y ago
  Okay, I think I get it. It's not the project that concerns you, it's the attitude behind it, and what that attitude implies about future action unrelated to this ridiculous "Manhattan Project". I get it, but I think we have to wait until those future actions actually happen to get serious. Partly it's because I don't necessarily believe that your narrative is correct - I think there's a great deal of real, legitimate ignorance about this technology, and that this will dispel in time. (Don't forget that Clinton is an old woman, who's made her career in a distinctly non-technical area. Do you really expect your grandma to understand things like PKI? Alas that there are no scientists or engineers in the field.)

dragontamer 11y ago

Ignorant article writes fighting words to click-bait readers. I listen to CSPAN every day, and heard Clinton say these words. Read the Washington Post criticism on this issue, which was more balanced. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2015/12/22/clinton-and-trump-are-looking-for-an-easy-out-on-the-internet-dont-give-it-to-them/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2015/12/22... Or even better, listen to Clinton so that you get the story straight from the horse's mouth. To see the game of "telephone" amplifying wtfs throughout the echochaimber bothers me severely. The technology exists to get your news directly from the source. Why do you need a reporter from Vice to tell you what your opinion should be on something Clinton said? Why don't you just listen to what Clinton said herself, and then make an opinion? At worst, Clinton simply demonstrated her extreme ignorance on this issue. She has no idea how encryption works, and was just saying words. She knows enough that she doesn't want to "break" encryption however, she's simply calling for computer scientists to think about the issue.

pdkl95 11y ago
What "telephone" game - the "straight from the horse's mouth" version (which I read yesterday) includes a direct threat to the tech industry. > Clinton simply demonstrated her extreme ignorance The first Crypto War over the Clipper Chip and years of key escrow debate was part of Bill Clinton's administration. There probability that Hillary Clinton being "extremely ignorant" about encryption is laughably small. > calling for computer scientists to think about the issue She knew what the computer scientist position was 15-20 years ago.
- dragontamer 11y ago
  Okay, here's the full debate transcript on what Clinton said. I don't see any issue, aside from Clinton's wish-washyness and clear ignorance on this subject. She understands that "Apple and Tech Experts" are angry about this issue, but she clearly doesn't understand why. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/democratic-debate-transcript-clinton-sanders-omalley-in-new-hampshire/ http://www.cbsnews.com/news/democratic-debate-transcript-cli... > CLINTON: I would not want to go to that point. I would hope that, given the extraordinary capacities that the tech community has and the legitimate needs and questions from law enforcement, that there could be a Manhattan-like project, something that would bring the government and the tech communities together to see they're not adversaries, they've got to be partners. > It doesn't do anybody any good if terrorists can move toward encrypted communication that no law enforcement agency can break into before or after. There must be some way. I don't know enough about the technology,Martha, to be able to say what it is, but I have a lot of confidence in our tech experts. > And maybe the back door is the wrong door, and I understand what Apple and others are saying about that. But I also understand, when a law enforcement official charged with the responsibility of preventing attacks -- to go back to our early questions, how do we prevent attacks -- well, if we can't know what someone is planning, we are going to have to rely on the neighbor or, you know, the member of the mosque or the teacher, somebody to see something. > CLINTON: I just think there's got to be a way, and I would hope that our tech companies would work with government to figure that out. Otherwise, law enforcement is blind -- blind before, blind during, and, unfortunately, in many instances, blind after. > So we always have to balance liberty and security, privacy and safety, but I know that law enforcement needs the tools to keep us safe. And that's what i hope, there can be some understanding and cooperation to achieve. ---------- I would like it for my politicians to understand technical issues, alas I've resigned myself to the fact that politicians really don't know what they are talking about. And all Clinton has done here is prove once more, that she doesn't know what she's talking about. Anyone who knows this issue (ie: You and Me) both know that there is a direct contradiction in Clinton's speech here. She's either playing dumb, or is dumb about this issue. And the rest of the reporters (Vice, Intercept, etc. etc.) are going crazy as if this is some existential threat on the internet. No, in my opinion, this is simply another presidential candidate trying to be vague about an issue they don't fully understand.

vox_mollis 11y ago

You do realize that you* SF people have been voting in DiFi for years, who has been actively stumping for undermining encryption on behalf of law enforcement jackboots far longer than Clinton, right? Silicon Valley is shooting itself in the foot, willingly. *: "you" as in the Northern California / Tech Industry electorate, not you individually.

mattmcclure 11y ago
In case others didn't understand the DiFi reference, it's Senator Dianne Feinstein, not to be confused with the "Agency for Public Management and eGovernment" (https://www.difi.no/om-difi/about-difi https://www.difi.no/om-difi/about-difi) :) Yes, politicians and politics is a cesspool of unfortunate sadness. No, this doesn't mean we shouldn't still be upset when the most likely presidential candidate takes a stance like this.