4 ms·

Any insight into which presidential candidates have the most privacy-friendly views here?

by swyman 11y ago

ghayes 11y ago
I don't know why you're being down-voted. The US is in the midst of an election cycle that may very well pertain to the "legislative action" of the parent comment (in so far as the executive has an effect on the legislature). From a recent article [0], it states (summarizing): Pro-Privacy: Cruz (R), Paul (R), Sanders (D) Pro-Surveillance: Trump (R), Rubio (R), Bush (R) Moderate: Carson (R), Clinton (D) [0] https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2016/02/02/where-do-us-presidential-candidates-stand-on-privacy-and-surveillance/ https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2016/02/02/where-do-us-pres...
- matwood 11y ago
  You're leaving out Gary Johnson, the libertarian candidate. He's already come out in full support of Apple and privacy. In the recent GOP town hall, Cruz did not come across as supporting privacy or Apple at all. Rubio took the most measured stance and seemed at least to understand the issue the best. He did not support Apple, but said he understood that breaking into the phone would make it available to all and the government needs to work more closes with SV for a solution. Of course that could just mean PRISM V2.
- duaneb 11y ago
  The evidence cited for cruz is a little weird; he's come out against NSA surveillance, but he's also for forcing Apple to comply with the court order to backdoor the phone. He is a bit of a constitutional nerd, though, so I suspect he's more similar to Obama in this respect than you might think considering how different they are in most respects. I'd put him on the moderate side, or at least as a wild card. Also, I would put Clinton in the rabidly anti-privacy camp if just for this stance she took after San Bernadino: http://www.nbcnews.com/tech/security/could-hillary-clinton-s-encryption-manhattan-project-work-n484086 http://www.nbcnews.com/tech/security/could-hillary-clinton-s.... She clearly has no desire for privacy from governments except through legal constraints. Furthermore, her understanding of technology as demonstrated by stances on her email servers, on encryption, and on video games, is outweighed by her desire to either (ab)use technology regardless, or attempt to intervene in it. Not great for an executive, which you would hope would be conservative (slow to move) OR knowledgeable OR defer to a strong cabinet.
- chippy 11y ago
  > I don't know why you're being down-voted. Off topic, but I am going to make a Hacker News bot that looks for this phrase, waits 1 hour and sees if the comment is still downvoted. Or, I'm going to write a copy and paste paragraph explaining to people why it appears that a comment has been downvoted. This would include all the mechanics, how karma works in HN, voting algorithms, mod flagging, time passed etc, involved as well as human psychology at play. So, the above phrase either is honest or dishonest. For example, in this case I would posit that yes, you actually do know why they were being downvoted, but that by writing that you were actually saying "I disagree with the others who downvoted you". There is a difference. It could be similiar to when people say "I don't know why anyone voted for Bush". They are not expressing ignorance about the reasons, they are saying that they disagree with peoples choices. In this case, it would be dishonest. Unless the person was actually ignorant of others (it is possible), in which case it is honest. Off-topic, as mentioned. Edits - I do know why I am being downvoted.
  - djhn 11y ago
    I don't know why this always works - at least on a large enough demographic - this strategy of being literal, candid and self-aware to leave the audience with an impression of total honesty and transparency, in contrast to the rest of the surrounding dishonest, double-speaking world. Oh wait...
  - newscracker 11y ago
    On topic reply to an off topic comment. :) Could it also be because people use "don't know" and "don't understand" to mean the same thing in many contexts? With "don't understand" being longer to type and speak and also being more "formal" in communication than "don't know", perhaps "don't know" is used as a substitute? In the Bush example, someone saying "I don't know why anyone voted for Bush" probably means "I don't really understand why (and with what thought process) anyone voted for Bush after everything we know about the matter."
duaneb 11y ago
That are left? Bernie has probably the strongest record, being both for net neutrality and against mass surveillance and the patriot act. I'd recommend taking a look through his policies as they are so well thought out in the cases he addresses. He doesn't address everything. On the other side of the fence, Rand Paul was the last sane voice (in terms of privacy), explicitly coming out in favor of net neutrality and strong, backdoor-less encryption. This is in stark contrast to Clinton—well, just google "clinton privacy" and see the massive number of problems she's had to deal with that demonstrate her technological eagerness seems to outweigh her understanding. She's certainly been an eager advocate of EXACTLY the type of action we're seeing here, arguing that we need backdoors for law enforcement. Marco Rubio has explicitly advocated protecting the existing mass surveillance techniques. I would be highly surprised if Trump or Cruz were for privacy—the former advocated for special ids, the latter doesn't seem to have a great grasp on technology, much less how to avoid using it to bludgeon people[1]. 1: https://twitter.com/sentedcruz/status/531834493922189313 https://twitter.com/sentedcruz/status/531834493922189313
- logfromblammo 11y ago
  H. Clinton has a very good record on defending her own privacy. Thus, I find it hard to believe that her record in terms of the privacy of the public stems from ignorance or misunderstanding. She ran her own secured, private e-mail server while serving as a major public official, after all, whether the technical details were delegated to underlings or not. I very much doubt that any establishment-backed candidates in either of the establishment parties would be willing to make any public statements directly applicable to privacy. They are far more likely to come in soft from the other side, and chat up "tools to combat terrorism and other forms of extremism," while eliding over the implication that organized domestic protest groups like Black Lives Matter, Occupy Wherever, or "Y'All-Qaeda" militiamen would also be targeted, in addition to overseas groups. I'd rather not elaborate further on anyone specific, as I don't want to shove my political biases down any throats on HN.

Any insight into which presidential candidates have the most privacy-friendly views here?

by swyman 11y ago

Any insight into which presidential candidates have the most privacy-friendly views here?

I don't know why you're being down-voted. The US is in the midst of an election cycle that may very well pertain to the "legislative action" of the parent comment (in so far as the executive has an effect on the legislature). From a recent article [0], it states (summarizing): Pro-Privacy: Cruz (R), Paul (R), Sanders (D) Pro-Surveillance: Trump (R), Rubio (R), Bush (R) Moderate: Carson (R), Clinton (D) [0] https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2016/02/02/where-do-us-presidential-candidates-stand-on-privacy-and-surveillance/ https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2016/02/02/where-do-us-pres...

matwood 11y ago
You're leaving out Gary Johnson, the libertarian candidate. He's already come out in full support of Apple and privacy. In the recent GOP town hall, Cruz did not come across as supporting privacy or Apple at all. Rubio took the most measured stance and seemed at least to understand the issue the best. He did not support Apple, but said he understood that breaking into the phone would make it available to all and the government needs to work more closes with SV for a solution. Of course that could just mean PRISM V2.
duaneb 11y ago
The evidence cited for cruz is a little weird; he's come out against NSA surveillance, but he's also for forcing Apple to comply with the court order to backdoor the phone. He is a bit of a constitutional nerd, though, so I suspect he's more similar to Obama in this respect than you might think considering how different they are in most respects. I'd put him on the moderate side, or at least as a wild card. Also, I would put Clinton in the rabidly anti-privacy camp if just for this stance she took after San Bernadino: http://www.nbcnews.com/tech/security/could-hillary-clinton-s-encryption-manhattan-project-work-n484086 http://www.nbcnews.com/tech/security/could-hillary-clinton-s.... She clearly has no desire for privacy from governments except through legal constraints. Furthermore, her understanding of technology as demonstrated by stances on her email servers, on encryption, and on video games, is outweighed by her desire to either (ab)use technology regardless, or attempt to intervene in it. Not great for an executive, which you would hope would be conservative (slow to move) OR knowledgeable OR defer to a strong cabinet.
chippy 11y ago
> I don't know why you're being down-voted. Off topic, but I am going to make a Hacker News bot that looks for this phrase, waits 1 hour and sees if the comment is still downvoted. Or, I'm going to write a copy and paste paragraph explaining to people why it appears that a comment has been downvoted. This would include all the mechanics, how karma works in HN, voting algorithms, mod flagging, time passed etc, involved as well as human psychology at play. So, the above phrase either is honest or dishonest. For example, in this case I would posit that yes, you actually do know why they were being downvoted, but that by writing that you were actually saying "I disagree with the others who downvoted you". There is a difference. It could be similiar to when people say "I don't know why anyone voted for Bush". They are not expressing ignorance about the reasons, they are saying that they disagree with peoples choices. In this case, it would be dishonest. Unless the person was actually ignorant of others (it is possible), in which case it is honest. Off-topic, as mentioned. Edits - I do know why I am being downvoted.
- djhn 11y ago
  I don't know why this always works - at least on a large enough demographic - this strategy of being literal, candid and self-aware to leave the audience with an impression of total honesty and transparency, in contrast to the rest of the surrounding dishonest, double-speaking world. Oh wait...
- newscracker 11y ago
  On topic reply to an off topic comment. :) Could it also be because people use "don't know" and "don't understand" to mean the same thing in many contexts? With "don't understand" being longer to type and speak and also being more "formal" in communication than "don't know", perhaps "don't know" is used as a substitute? In the Bush example, someone saying "I don't know why anyone voted for Bush" probably means "I don't really understand why (and with what thought process) anyone voted for Bush after everything we know about the matter."

duaneb 11y ago

That are left? Bernie has probably the strongest record, being both for net neutrality and against mass surveillance and the patriot act. I'd recommend taking a look through his policies as they are so well thought out in the cases he addresses. He doesn't address everything. On the other side of the fence, Rand Paul was the last sane voice (in terms of privacy), explicitly coming out in favor of net neutrality and strong, backdoor-less encryption. This is in stark contrast to Clinton—well, just google "clinton privacy" and see the massive number of problems she's had to deal with that demonstrate her technological eagerness seems to outweigh her understanding. She's certainly been an eager advocate of EXACTLY the type of action we're seeing here, arguing that we need backdoors for law enforcement. Marco Rubio has explicitly advocated protecting the existing mass surveillance techniques. I would be highly surprised if Trump or Cruz were for privacy—the former advocated for special ids, the latter doesn't seem to have a great grasp on technology, much less how to avoid using it to bludgeon people[1]. 1: https://twitter.com/sentedcruz/status/531834493922189313 https://twitter.com/sentedcruz/status/531834493922189313

logfromblammo 11y ago
H. Clinton has a very good record on defending her own privacy. Thus, I find it hard to believe that her record in terms of the privacy of the public stems from ignorance or misunderstanding. She ran her own secured, private e-mail server while serving as a major public official, after all, whether the technical details were delegated to underlings or not. I very much doubt that any establishment-backed candidates in either of the establishment parties would be willing to make any public statements directly applicable to privacy. They are far more likely to come in soft from the other side, and chat up "tools to combat terrorism and other forms of extremism," while eliding over the implication that organized domestic protest groups like Black Lives Matter, Occupy Wherever, or "Y'All-Qaeda" militiamen would also be targeted, in addition to overseas groups. I'd rather not elaborate further on anyone specific, as I don't want to shove my political biases down any throats on HN.