6 ms·

This is no surprise. She has long wanted to create a "Manhattan Project" to backdoor crypto Why the infosec community overwhelmingly supports her is an ongoing

by daxorid 10y ago

This is no surprise. She has long wanted to create a "Manhattan Project" to backdoor crypto Why the infosec community overwhelmingly supports her is an ongoing point of confusion for me.

GordonS 10y ago
Maybe because the alternative is Trump. Which is the lesser evil?
- hprotagonist 10y ago
  Also because what she wants is a technical impossibility, as she (and feinstein and burr) will learn in time. It's the natural approach of centrists to try to take a compromise, middle-of-the-road position. Usually that's wise; sometimes the world is quantized in a way that means you cannot split the difference.
- jwtadvice 10y ago
  I think it's probably this. The primary strategy by the Democratic Party and by establishment circles has been to make Trump seem as unpalatable as possible, hoping to make him so much less desirable than the historically untrusted establishment candidate that she may pull off a win at the ballot box. Since the first-past-the-post electoral system functions to magnify strategic voting and minimize voting for values, the impression that Trump is a more dangerous and despicable candidate (traded by campaign dollars and personal connections to create information bubbles over the electorate), this strategy is not only effective but also smart. In the end we've got two candidates we really don't want, a complete lack of examination of policy, and a 'default' to an establishment candidate seeking further erosion of civil liberties, checks and balances and civilian participation in government.
  - matt4077 10y ago
    Trump is simply unacceptable, there's no establishment conspiracy required. In fact I thought the major media outlets waited far too long to give up the pretense of normalcy. It's only the last few weeks that journalists get to write the by-now established fact that he's a lunatic. But I share the concern about HC, considering she's just far too conservative on major issues especially with regards to encryption/"national security" etc. She's not corrupt, or evil or crooked or lying or smelling as sulfur, she's just (imho) wrong. Let's hope there will be people around her who can have a positive impact on her thinking.
    - wernercd 10y ago
      > She's not corrupt, or evil or crooked or lying or smelling as sulfur, she's just (imho) wrong. If she's not... why did she delete thousands of emails that were illegally on a private server? Why did she lie about the source of protests and then leave American's to die? For someone who isn't corrupt/evil/crooked... she sure does do a lot of corrupt/evil/crooked shit.
      - jwtadvice 10y ago
        > If she's not... why did she delete thousands of emails that were illegally on a private server? Because she was covering up criminal behavior. You don't have to be evil to cover up criminal behavior. It's a very rational thing to do. > Why did she lie about the source of protests and then leave American's to die? She didn't want Americans to understand that their intelligence and military communities had supported extremist forces in Libya to oust a geopolitical opponent, and that these extremist forces themselves aren't particularly welcoming to America or its values. She didn't want comparisons to 9/11 and the Saudi support for those attacks on our home country. She left Americans to die because she and the administration could not muster the support to mobilize, against international law, troop movements across borders as the activity in Libya had until that point been special operations and irregular warfare. It would have been difficult to breach international law to engage an enemy in the CIA annex to the State Department buildings - bases that on the record didn't exist. All of this is very rational. Al Capone, similarly, was a very rational person, and not "evil" whatsoever. A rational person looks after themselves, their interests and the activities and events they stewart.
        matt4077 10y ago
        It's been well established that this protest narrative came from the CIA, who had genuine reason to believe it, although it turned out false. And of course there were emails somewhere of people predicting violence or complaining about embassy security. It's the same as those italian scientists put on trial because somebody somewhere predicted an earthquake that they didn't predict. I bet if you go through all the mail the US government gets, you'll find predictions of CERN turning into a black whole and swallowing the known universe. Does that mean the Air Force should bomb Switzerland?
- toomuchtodo 10y ago
  > Maybe because the alternative is Trump. Which is the lesser evil? This is what we're reduced to? Voting for the "lesser evil"? Who in a first world country should tolerate this? I'm not voting, but I hope Trump wins. Hopefully the resulting 4 years are so terrible that voters never tolerate a candidate like Trump or Clinton again. EDIT: I'm against Clinton's encryption policies, her pro-fracking stance, her war hawk attitude, her backroom political dealings, and her stance on privatizing social security, just to start (almost forgot! The ACA is "good enough" and we won't ever see single payer). I don't care if she's the "lesser evil", that she's a woman, whatever. She's not just a terrible candidate, but also a terrible person.
  - gjolund 10y ago
    Same. I am so tired of the "Trump is worse" rationalization.
    - eridius 10y ago
      Rationalization? It's not a rationalization, it's true. By all appearances Trump would be a national disaster.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    Everyone in a democracy should work to get the best possible options in an election, but then choose intelligently the best (which is the same as the least bad) option in terms of expected result of voting when the election arrives. A failure to secure the options you'd like to have in the head up to an election may prompt reflection and longer-term changes in approach to try to get better results in the future, but doesn't change that you ought to make the best (which may merely be least bad) available choice at the election.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
  - TazeTSchnitzel 10y ago
    > Hopefully the resulting 4 years are so terrible that voters never tolerate a candidate like Trump or Clinton again. Accelerationism is irresponsible, and the human harm it will cause is irreparable.
- daodedickinson 10y ago
  I'm voting Trump because I feel Hillary is unimpeachable in the bad sense of the term. I hope they both get their many days in court and are prosecuted for any wrongdoing. If Trump is president, the media will do it's job, Twitter, Google, Facebook, the networks and papers will work diligently against him, and Trump has many enemies in the GOP. I hope for bipartisan opposition to Trump to reign in and deter in the future the imperial powers the presidency has accrued.
- StanislavPetrov 10y ago
  There are plenty of alternatives. One is Jill Stein (who I support). The fact that 99% of voters will vote for a completely worthless, amoral candidate is an indictment on our population - it has nothing to do with lack of decent options.
zzzcpan 10y ago
> Why the infosec community overwhelmingly supports her They do? I thought infosec community doesn't play this game. States are their natural enemies.
amalcon 10y ago
First, because not everyone in the infosec community is a single issue voter. Second, because to all appearances so far, her opponent would be at least as bad on this issue. Remember, Trump briefly advocated a boycott of Apple if they wouldn't decrypt a phone for the FBI.
- Shivetya 10y ago
  there is one real reason to vote for her opponent, regardless how odd he may be at times. Congress and the Press will give her a pass to do as she wants whereas they will hound Trump day in and day out. We need an active press, not one that thinks itself part of the government. One that doesn't take orders from the Administration and one that isn't afraid to ask the questions that need to be asked.
  - eanzenberg 10y ago
    >>Congress and the Press will give her a pass to do as she wants whereas they will hound Trump day in and day out. Wat. You mean like congress gives Obama a pass to do what he wants? Are you thick?
    - StanislavPetrov 10y ago
      >You mean like congress gives Obama a pass to do what he wants? Yea, I can't believe all the scrutiny he is getting for bombing Yemen and launching a new war in Iraq. The criticism from the press has been astounding!
    - jordanb 10y ago
      I've always been a huge Obama supporter (slightly disillusioned in recent years) but Obama, honestly, has been given an ENORMOUS pass on his drone assassinations and on his war against whistleblowers.
      - eanzenberg 10y ago
        Sure lets stop assassinating islamic terrorists and give them the due process they deserv...owait looks like theyre beheading civilians again lul..
whybroke 10y ago
Because he leaves his supporters to assume his agenda is theirs by never explicitly stating it: Against backdoor crypto? so is Trump. For a backdoor crypto, so is Trump.
dragonwriter 10y ago
Probably because while she is persistently (at least publicly) ignorant in advocating mutually incompatible positions involving getting around encryption while protecting legitimate privacy and security rights of everyone who isnt a terrorist, and in suggesting that these mutually incompatible goals could be met with sufficient application of technical expertise, her opponents only statements on the issue have been on the side of unconditional surrender of access to the security apparatus without acknowledging that there are legitimate privacy and security concerns. Hillary's position, if pursued as she has laid it out, would involve a bunch of money being spent, much of it going to infosec experts, with the result that the impossible thing she says she seeks would be shown to be impossible.

by daxorid 10y ago

This is no surprise. She has long wanted to create a "Manhattan Project" to backdoor crypto Why the infosec community overwhelmingly supports her is an ongoing point of confusion for me.

GordonS 10y ago

Maybe because the alternative is Trump. Which is the lesser evil?

hprotagonist 10y ago
Also because what she wants is a technical impossibility, as she (and feinstein and burr) will learn in time. It's the natural approach of centrists to try to take a compromise, middle-of-the-road position. Usually that's wise; sometimes the world is quantized in a way that means you cannot split the difference.
jwtadvice 10y ago
I think it's probably this. The primary strategy by the Democratic Party and by establishment circles has been to make Trump seem as unpalatable as possible, hoping to make him so much less desirable than the historically untrusted establishment candidate that she may pull off a win at the ballot box. Since the first-past-the-post electoral system functions to magnify strategic voting and minimize voting for values, the impression that Trump is a more dangerous and despicable candidate (traded by campaign dollars and personal connections to create information bubbles over the electorate), this strategy is not only effective but also smart. In the end we've got two candidates we really don't want, a complete lack of examination of policy, and a 'default' to an establishment candidate seeking further erosion of civil liberties, checks and balances and civilian participation in government.
- matt4077 10y ago
  Trump is simply unacceptable, there's no establishment conspiracy required. In fact I thought the major media outlets waited far too long to give up the pretense of normalcy. It's only the last few weeks that journalists get to write the by-now established fact that he's a lunatic. But I share the concern about HC, considering she's just far too conservative on major issues especially with regards to encryption/"national security" etc. She's not corrupt, or evil or crooked or lying or smelling as sulfur, she's just (imho) wrong. Let's hope there will be people around her who can have a positive impact on her thinking.
  - wernercd 10y ago
    > She's not corrupt, or evil or crooked or lying or smelling as sulfur, she's just (imho) wrong. If she's not... why did she delete thousands of emails that were illegally on a private server? Why did she lie about the source of protests and then leave American's to die? For someone who isn't corrupt/evil/crooked... she sure does do a lot of corrupt/evil/crooked shit.
    - jwtadvice 10y ago
      > If she's not... why did she delete thousands of emails that were illegally on a private server? Because she was covering up criminal behavior. You don't have to be evil to cover up criminal behavior. It's a very rational thing to do. > Why did she lie about the source of protests and then leave American's to die? She didn't want Americans to understand that their intelligence and military communities had supported extremist forces in Libya to oust a geopolitical opponent, and that these extremist forces themselves aren't particularly welcoming to America or its values. She didn't want comparisons to 9/11 and the Saudi support for those attacks on our home country. She left Americans to die because she and the administration could not muster the support to mobilize, against international law, troop movements across borders as the activity in Libya had until that point been special operations and irregular warfare. It would have been difficult to breach international law to engage an enemy in the CIA annex to the State Department buildings - bases that on the record didn't exist. All of this is very rational. Al Capone, similarly, was a very rational person, and not "evil" whatsoever. A rational person looks after themselves, their interests and the activities and events they stewart.
      - matt4077 10y ago
        It's been well established that this protest narrative came from the CIA, who had genuine reason to believe it, although it turned out false. And of course there were emails somewhere of people predicting violence or complaining about embassy security. It's the same as those italian scientists put on trial because somebody somewhere predicted an earthquake that they didn't predict. I bet if you go through all the mail the US government gets, you'll find predictions of CERN turning into a black whole and swallowing the known universe. Does that mean the Air Force should bomb Switzerland?
toomuchtodo 10y ago
> Maybe because the alternative is Trump. Which is the lesser evil? This is what we're reduced to? Voting for the "lesser evil"? Who in a first world country should tolerate this? I'm not voting, but I hope Trump wins. Hopefully the resulting 4 years are so terrible that voters never tolerate a candidate like Trump or Clinton again. EDIT: I'm against Clinton's encryption policies, her pro-fracking stance, her war hawk attitude, her backroom political dealings, and her stance on privatizing social security, just to start (almost forgot! The ACA is "good enough" and we won't ever see single payer). I don't care if she's the "lesser evil", that she's a woman, whatever. She's not just a terrible candidate, but also a terrible person.
- gjolund 10y ago
  Same. I am so tired of the "Trump is worse" rationalization.
  - eridius 10y ago
    Rationalization? It's not a rationalization, it's true. By all appearances Trump would be a national disaster.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  Everyone in a democracy should work to get the best possible options in an election, but then choose intelligently the best (which is the same as the least bad) option in terms of expected result of voting when the election arrives. A failure to secure the options you'd like to have in the head up to an election may prompt reflection and longer-term changes in approach to try to get better results in the future, but doesn't change that you ought to make the best (which may merely be least bad) available choice at the election.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- TazeTSchnitzel 10y ago
  > Hopefully the resulting 4 years are so terrible that voters never tolerate a candidate like Trump or Clinton again. Accelerationism is irresponsible, and the human harm it will cause is irreparable.
daodedickinson 10y ago
I'm voting Trump because I feel Hillary is unimpeachable in the bad sense of the term. I hope they both get their many days in court and are prosecuted for any wrongdoing. If Trump is president, the media will do it's job, Twitter, Google, Facebook, the networks and papers will work diligently against him, and Trump has many enemies in the GOP. I hope for bipartisan opposition to Trump to reign in and deter in the future the imperial powers the presidency has accrued.
StanislavPetrov 10y ago
There are plenty of alternatives. One is Jill Stein (who I support). The fact that 99% of voters will vote for a completely worthless, amoral candidate is an indictment on our population - it has nothing to do with lack of decent options.

zzzcpan 10y ago

> Why the infosec community overwhelmingly supports her They do? I thought infosec community doesn't play this game. States are their natural enemies.

amalcon 10y ago

First, because not everyone in the infosec community is a single issue voter. Second, because to all appearances so far, her opponent would be at least as bad on this issue. Remember, Trump briefly advocated a boycott of Apple if they wouldn't decrypt a phone for the FBI.

Shivetya 10y ago
there is one real reason to vote for her opponent, regardless how odd he may be at times. Congress and the Press will give her a pass to do as she wants whereas they will hound Trump day in and day out. We need an active press, not one that thinks itself part of the government. One that doesn't take orders from the Administration and one that isn't afraid to ask the questions that need to be asked.
- eanzenberg 10y ago
  >>Congress and the Press will give her a pass to do as she wants whereas they will hound Trump day in and day out. Wat. You mean like congress gives Obama a pass to do what he wants? Are you thick?
  - StanislavPetrov 10y ago
    >You mean like congress gives Obama a pass to do what he wants? Yea, I can't believe all the scrutiny he is getting for bombing Yemen and launching a new war in Iraq. The criticism from the press has been astounding!
  - jordanb 10y ago
    I've always been a huge Obama supporter (slightly disillusioned in recent years) but Obama, honestly, has been given an ENORMOUS pass on his drone assassinations and on his war against whistleblowers.
    - eanzenberg 10y ago
      Sure lets stop assassinating islamic terrorists and give them the due process they deserv...owait looks like theyre beheading civilians again lul..

whybroke 10y ago

Because he leaves his supporters to assume his agenda is theirs by never explicitly stating it: Against backdoor crypto? so is Trump. For a backdoor crypto, so is Trump.

dragonwriter 10y ago

Probably because while she is persistently (at least publicly) ignorant in advocating mutually incompatible positions involving getting around encryption while protecting legitimate privacy and security rights of everyone who isnt a terrorist, and in suggesting that these mutually incompatible goals could be met with sufficient application of technical expertise, her opponents only statements on the issue have been on the side of unconditional surrender of access to the security apparatus without acknowledging that there are legitimate privacy and security concerns. Hillary's position, if pursued as she has laid it out, would involve a bunch of money being spent, much of it going to infosec experts, with the result that the impossible thing she says she seeks would be shown to be impossible.