3 ms·

I'd honestly say it is more important than Susan Crawford is not only a technological adviser but a professor of law. Megan Smith is an engineer and lacks the

I'd honestly say it is more important than Susan Crawford is not only a technological adviser but a professor of law. Megan Smith is an engineer and lacks the standing [in the eyes of some people who value qualifications from an accredited University] to really argue with the president about the legality of an action like Susan can. So, I'd say this message works better with Susan as the spokesperson regardless. But yes, honestly, its quite embarrassing how far out on a limb both Obama and the FBI have gone to insist on this path. It is just a question of whether public opinion supports that limb at this point, honestly.

studentrob 11y ago
Yes I agree Crawford's JD, professorship, and experience as an internet activist lend a lot of credence to her stance. Generally I like to think if you understand encryption and where it is used in technology, then you should be able to understand why back doors are bad for public safety and the economy. But there is still 42% of the population who thinks the DOJ is in the right. That's too many. The facts need to be brought to the attention of the public so they can make up their own minds. And it is happening. Several public figures have already changed their positions to support Apple after learning more about the issue. Lindsey Graham and Sam Harris are two examples. Crawford's post is one more voice of reason in this debate. About Megan Smith, I assume if the President did not feel she was qualified to advise him, then he would not have named her. We can only guess as to the conversations that are happening. We haven't had much transparency with the CTO on this issue.