4 ms·

The tech-aloofness of the two nominees marks a sharp break from President Barack Obama, who fought to keep a mobile phone when he entered the White House... It

The tech-aloofness of the two nominees marks a sharp break from President Barack Obama, who fought to keep a mobile phone when he entered the White House... It was Clinton's desire to do the same thing that led to her setting up her own email server and the resulting scandal. Clinton also balked at agency guidance that she use a government-issued personal computer in her Foggy Bottom office Obama wanted to use a mobile device instead of a desktop computer for email, and that proves that's he's tech-savvy, but Clinton desire for the same thing means she's a luddite?

ArkyBeagle 10y ago
I interpret this more as - government IT is in terrible shape, and I can't blame somebody who does not wish to be saddled with the pain of it. The argument that an ostensibly political appointee must be held to the same IT-savviness standards as , say, an enlisted (wo)man are specious. While it would be a good thing if it were true, we all know too many people in positions of power who have simply not had the time to be competent in it. It's a variation on the generally advancing Russian Doll thinking that is sweeping tech.
- Turing_Machine 10y ago
  "The argument that an ostensibly political appointee must be held to the same IT-savviness standards as , say, an enlisted (wo)man are specious." Wait: you are seriously arguing that the Secretary of State of the United States is in a less-sensitive position than an enlisted member of the armed forces? Seriously?
  - ArkyBeagle 10y ago
    I am saying that detailed crypto and IT knowledge is not a prerequisite for being appointed to a cabinet position. Ever do any work for lawyers? It's like that. They have admins that run the firms; the lawyers are the inventory.
    - Turing_Machine 10y ago
      However, being able to hire competent employees is (or should be) a prerequisite for any executive position. Also, it doesn't take "detailed crypto and IT knowledge" to know that sending sensitive material over email is a bad idea.
doctorshady 10y ago
> The tech-aloofness of the two nominees marks a sharp break from President Barack Obama, who fought to keep a mobile phone when he entered the White House... Keep in mind that isn't necessarily a good thing, or even a sign of tech savvy. http://cryptome.org/2012-info/obama-moron/0021.htm http://cryptome.org/2012-info/obama-moron/0021.htm
- maxerickson 10y ago
  The author of that post seems to be quite a character. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxPfgISHU3E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxPfgISHU3E
  - doctorshady 10y ago
    Definitely seems like it. It sounds like there's a very clear issue here that the president has been repeatedly talked to about, though. My point was that wanting to use a product that's been around for 30 years isn't necessarily an indication of knowledge and acceptance of tech; that's sort of a vain way to measure it, imho. It should be measured by someone's comprehension of how a technology works, and an understanding of the positive and negative implications of it. Honestly, as time goes on, more of the people I meet in the tech sector seem more like moderates; a lot less likely to jump to a shiny new thing than the average consumer.
    - maxerickson 10y ago
      It isn't clear to me they have any idea what they are talking about. They are obviously paranoid (why else have a rocket launcher?). I would expect the secure equipment to not leak information when exposed to a weak RF source, and I wonder if the cell phones in question are themselves secure (there was a bunch of noise about the special effort required to provision secure cell phones at the time).
      - doctorshady 10y ago
        > It isn't clear to me they have any idea what they are talking about. Did you read down into the last part of the Cryptome document? He goes into a pretty in-depth explanation of why it's an issue.
Turing_Machine 10y ago
Both of them "fought" to keep using Blackberry phones which the NSA had warned were insecure. Cluelessness, luddism, unwillingness to learn something new... pick one or more. "Tech-savvy" definitely is not an option here.

ArkyBeagle 10y ago

I interpret this more as - government IT is in terrible shape, and I can't blame somebody who does not wish to be saddled with the pain of it. The argument that an ostensibly political appointee must be held to the same IT-savviness standards as , say, an enlisted (wo)man are specious. While it would be a good thing if it were true, we all know too many people in positions of power who have simply not had the time to be competent in it. It's a variation on the generally advancing Russian Doll thinking that is sweeping tech.

Turing_Machine 10y ago
"The argument that an ostensibly political appointee must be held to the same IT-savviness standards as , say, an enlisted (wo)man are specious." Wait: you are seriously arguing that the Secretary of State of the United States is in a less-sensitive position than an enlisted member of the armed forces? Seriously?
- ArkyBeagle 10y ago
  I am saying that detailed crypto and IT knowledge is not a prerequisite for being appointed to a cabinet position. Ever do any work for lawyers? It's like that. They have admins that run the firms; the lawyers are the inventory.
  - Turing_Machine 10y ago
    However, being able to hire competent employees is (or should be) a prerequisite for any executive position. Also, it doesn't take "detailed crypto and IT knowledge" to know that sending sensitive material over email is a bad idea.

doctorshady 10y ago

> The tech-aloofness of the two nominees marks a sharp break from President Barack Obama, who fought to keep a mobile phone when he entered the White House... Keep in mind that isn't necessarily a good thing, or even a sign of tech savvy. http://cryptome.org/2012-info/obama-moron/0021.htm http://cryptome.org/2012-info/obama-moron/0021.htm

maxerickson 10y ago
The author of that post seems to be quite a character. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxPfgISHU3E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxPfgISHU3E
- doctorshady 10y ago
  Definitely seems like it. It sounds like there's a very clear issue here that the president has been repeatedly talked to about, though. My point was that wanting to use a product that's been around for 30 years isn't necessarily an indication of knowledge and acceptance of tech; that's sort of a vain way to measure it, imho. It should be measured by someone's comprehension of how a technology works, and an understanding of the positive and negative implications of it. Honestly, as time goes on, more of the people I meet in the tech sector seem more like moderates; a lot less likely to jump to a shiny new thing than the average consumer.
  - maxerickson 10y ago
    It isn't clear to me they have any idea what they are talking about. They are obviously paranoid (why else have a rocket launcher?). I would expect the secure equipment to not leak information when exposed to a weak RF source, and I wonder if the cell phones in question are themselves secure (there was a bunch of noise about the special effort required to provision secure cell phones at the time).
    - doctorshady 10y ago
      > It isn't clear to me they have any idea what they are talking about. Did you read down into the last part of the Cryptome document? He goes into a pretty in-depth explanation of why it's an issue.

Turing_Machine 10y ago

Both of them "fought" to keep using Blackberry phones which the NSA had warned were insecure. Cluelessness, luddism, unwillingness to learn something new... pick one or more. "Tech-savvy" definitely is not an option here.