3 ms·

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

by 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.
- nitrogen 11y ago
  Given the track record of presidents, candidates, and politicians, ignorance of encryption (often willful ignorance) is a threat to modern technology. There is ample opportunity for Clinton to be informed. This is not the naive wishful thinking of a newbie politician; it's the savvy attempt of a master to appear to be the "reasonable" side of the debate and shift the Overton window.
  - dragontamer 11y ago
    > There is ample opportunity for Clinton to be informed. I agree with this, which is why I don't plan on voting for her. But to call her a "threat" when her only threat is "being ignorant" is making mountains out of molehills. But sure, hyperventilate about a made up issue if you like. There's actual issues in this country to care about, and you're welcome to misrepresent Clinton's words to self-manufacture an enemy if you want to. I'm simply calling out the Vice article for doing so. In case you don't see it, the politics of the situation are obvious. The defense hawks want us to do something about encryption because ISIS is now clearly using VPN, TOR, and other forms of readily-available encryption to communicate with each other. In particular, the connection of the San Bernadina shooters to ISIS seems to have only been discovered through private communication. (not quite TOR, but they only could have discovered that fact using non-publicly available information if you know what I mean). The Paris Attack was coordinated entirely within encrypted communications. And the fact of the matter is, the US has absolutely no power against such a space. Clinton wants to appeal to the defense hawks, by claiming she has a solution. But she's also balancing her talk by occasionally saying "Apple" and "I'm against Backdoors". IE: She's being a politician, and she's ignorantly pretending to believe there's a solution here. The fact remains: any weakening of encryption is tantamount to a backdoor, and doing nothing is unacceptable to the defense hawks. So Clinton's best move is either to play dumb, or actually be dumb.
    - jkoebler 11y ago
      She's playing dumb, as are the FBI, the NSA, and everyone else. Clinton (and Obama) have many many advisers who DO know the issue and have explained it to them. She knows, in broad strokes, what's happening here, as does every major politician. This has now been an issue discussed before Congress many many times over the last two years, the FBI and NSA won't shut up about it. She knows.

by pdkl95 11y 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.

nitrogen 11y ago
Given the track record of presidents, candidates, and politicians, ignorance of encryption (often willful ignorance) is a threat to modern technology. There is ample opportunity for Clinton to be informed. This is not the naive wishful thinking of a newbie politician; it's the savvy attempt of a master to appear to be the "reasonable" side of the debate and shift the Overton window.
- dragontamer 11y ago
  > There is ample opportunity for Clinton to be informed. I agree with this, which is why I don't plan on voting for her. But to call her a "threat" when her only threat is "being ignorant" is making mountains out of molehills. But sure, hyperventilate about a made up issue if you like. There's actual issues in this country to care about, and you're welcome to misrepresent Clinton's words to self-manufacture an enemy if you want to. I'm simply calling out the Vice article for doing so. In case you don't see it, the politics of the situation are obvious. The defense hawks want us to do something about encryption because ISIS is now clearly using VPN, TOR, and other forms of readily-available encryption to communicate with each other. In particular, the connection of the San Bernadina shooters to ISIS seems to have only been discovered through private communication. (not quite TOR, but they only could have discovered that fact using non-publicly available information if you know what I mean). The Paris Attack was coordinated entirely within encrypted communications. And the fact of the matter is, the US has absolutely no power against such a space. Clinton wants to appeal to the defense hawks, by claiming she has a solution. But she's also balancing her talk by occasionally saying "Apple" and "I'm against Backdoors". IE: She's being a politician, and she's ignorantly pretending to believe there's a solution here. The fact remains: any weakening of encryption is tantamount to a backdoor, and doing nothing is unacceptable to the defense hawks. So Clinton's best move is either to play dumb, or actually be dumb.
  - jkoebler 11y ago
    She's playing dumb, as are the FBI, the NSA, and everyone else. Clinton (and Obama) have many many advisers who DO know the issue and have explained it to them. She knows, in broad strokes, what's happening here, as does every major politician. This has now been an issue discussed before Congress many many times over the last two years, the FBI and NSA won't shut up about it. She knows.