6 ms·

I don't say this in a rude way, I just say it because I don't understand: it baffles me that the election of Donald Trump caused people to notice certain things

I don't say this in a rude way, I just say it because I don't understand: it baffles me that the election of Donald Trump caused people to notice certain things. If you are worried about government surveillance now, why were you not worried about that same power under a different administration? If you are worried about corporate overreach now, why were you not worried about that power under a different administration? Why is this fear more valid now then when people were worried four years ago? Did you not notice it? Is it because those people weren't on your side? Do we assume benevolent dictators? I genuinely don't understand the mindset. If you know that in the future power may be abused by someone...why would you ever give someone that power? What caused this vast attention shift? It's genuinely smart people that seem to be noticing this stuff for the first time. How?

sylvinus 10y ago
To be fair, Bruce has been worried (and very publicly so) about those things for a long time. I think what the post transpires is just a new sense of urgency.
- privong 10y ago
  He even says as much: Those are my four areas. Under a Clinton administration, my list would have looked much the same. Trump's election just means the threats will be much greater, and the battles a lot harder to win.
  - aaron-lebo 10y ago
    See, I might even be tempted to believe that but he presents it like it's a known thing. Why should we fear a Trump administration more? Why should we fear it so much that it's worth changing our personal focus for the next four years? Doesn't that seem reactionary? If we look at the facts, we know that the Bushes and Clintons are friendly and even share a lot of similar views and the same goes for the Obamas and Clintons...and the Trumps and Clintons. Hell, one of Trump's first statements after that infamous tape was: "Bill Clinton has said worse things to me on the golf course". I'm inclined to believe him [0]. So we've got the previous four administrations going back to the 1980s that are chummy and/or have similar views. Under those administrations all this government surveillance has taken place. Under those administrations all this corporate overreach has been happening. Under these administrations we had social networks tracking their users without consent. More recently, Obama has been fairly friendly towards Zuckerberg and other tech stars. Tech and politics are intertwined now. So know all of this...what steps is Trump going to take that are going to be worse than those that a Clinton administration would have engaged in? Without something supporting it, it's just fearmongering. http://imgur.com/gallery/uO2cqtr http://imgur.com/gallery/uO2cqtr
    - Jtsummers 10y ago
      Trump has consistently demonstrated his impulsiveness and lack of restraint in communicating his thoughts. To the point that erroneous statements about some companies have sent their stocks downward. He also claimed, without evidence, that a plane crash that had just occurred was by Islamic terrorists. He also called for a boycott of Apple (though his campaign staff still used their devices) because they wouldn't create a backdoor for the San Bernadino shooter's iPhone. No doubt the Clinton administration would've continued a lot of the same surveillance, but it's unlikely she would've made populist and hyperbolic appeals to the people to turn them into a mob against those like Schneier or companies like Apple who want to protect our privacy (however imperfectly). EDIT: What's Clinton at a Trump wedding matter? Wealthy and powerful people hobnob with wealthy and powerful people. My girlfriend's father is well-connected in Argentina, he attends events at the US Embassy and with other well-connected people. It implies nothing except that people in that strata network and socialize, which is a large part of maintaining their status.
      - aaron-lebo 10y ago
        I'm saying that the Clintons and Trump are a lot closer than people realize: People with knowledge of the call in both camps said it was one of many that Clinton and Trump have had over the years, whether about golf or donations to the Clinton Foundation. But the call in May was considered especially sensitive, coming soon after Hillary Rodham Clinton had declared her own presidential run the month before. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/bill-clinton-called-donald-trump-ahead-of-republicans-2016-launch/2015/08/05/e2b30bb8-3ae3-11e5-b3ac-8a79bc44e5e2_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/bill-clinton-called-... These people being so close makes it strange that the elcetion of one would cause fear while the other would cause things to go on as usual.
        Jtsummers 10y ago
        You're referencing talks between Mr. Clinton and Mr. Trump, not Mrs. Clinton. And then you try and draw conclusions about how similar Mrs. Clinton's and Mr. Trump's presidencies would have been?
noelwelsh 10y ago
I'm just going to respond to this in the context of this essay. It's very different to notice something and decide to do something about it. One requires much more expenditure of effort than the other. This is about how one person has decided to allocate their budget of effort over the next 4 years. One can reasonably assume they have noticed these problems before.
mhb 10y ago
When "your guy" is in charge, you want him to be powerful so that he can do what you want. We've had over 200 years of never expecting "the other guy" to ever get the power even though every 4/8/12 years he does seem to.
idlewords 10y ago
It is exasperating to read comments like this about Schneier in particular, who has been beating this drum for a long time, and whose anxieties about surveillance and the power it concentrates have been wholly decoupled from the politics of who wields it. What has changed under Trump is that the power is now concentrated in tiny hands that seem particularly like it to abuse it, unconstrained by social norms or political checks. But Schneier wrote entire books about the dangers of surveillance culture back when we all thought Trump was a joke. Before you say things like "why only now", take the two minutes it takes to discover whether this is in fact a new topic for the speaker, or if they have a history of addressing it.
tptacek 10y ago
Nobody on HN is clueful about every subject that comes up on HN. You're not expected to be able to comment intelligently on every story here. However, if you have no substantive contribution to make about a thread --- for instance, because it's about the most famous living cryptographer and you no exposure to cryptography or Internet security --- you are expected not to comment at all. As it stands, you've derailed the whole thread with an objection that to most readers on HN appears completely nonsensical. Whether intended that way or not, this kind of commenting is indistinguishable from trolling. Everyone else: this is why we have a flag button.
- aaron-lebo 10y ago
  I don't have any problem with you personally, but it's not your job to shut down a thread because you disagree with the author.
  - dang 10y ago
    Please don't take this thread any further off topic. A substantive debate about variance or the lack of it in the surveillance policies of successive administrations is on-topic in a thread about surveillance. But arguing about whether you should or shouldn't know who Schneier is, and some of these other things you've posted, are way out in the weeds.
  - throwaway291289 10y ago
    You simply criticized the wrong person. Schneier has already fought against the Clipper chip as far as I remember. I agree that we don't know yet whether surveillance will be worse under Trump than under Obama/Clinton. Trump likes to troll and is a bit unpredictable. He has flamed the CIA and apparently invites Musk (green energy). For all we know Schneier will be invited to the transition team next week.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]

sylvinus 10y ago

To be fair, Bruce has been worried (and very publicly so) about those things for a long time. I think what the post transpires is just a new sense of urgency.

privong 10y ago
He even says as much: Those are my four areas. Under a Clinton administration, my list would have looked much the same. Trump's election just means the threats will be much greater, and the battles a lot harder to win.
- aaron-lebo 10y ago
  See, I might even be tempted to believe that but he presents it like it's a known thing. Why should we fear a Trump administration more? Why should we fear it so much that it's worth changing our personal focus for the next four years? Doesn't that seem reactionary? If we look at the facts, we know that the Bushes and Clintons are friendly and even share a lot of similar views and the same goes for the Obamas and Clintons...and the Trumps and Clintons. Hell, one of Trump's first statements after that infamous tape was: "Bill Clinton has said worse things to me on the golf course". I'm inclined to believe him [0]. So we've got the previous four administrations going back to the 1980s that are chummy and/or have similar views. Under those administrations all this government surveillance has taken place. Under those administrations all this corporate overreach has been happening. Under these administrations we had social networks tracking their users without consent. More recently, Obama has been fairly friendly towards Zuckerberg and other tech stars. Tech and politics are intertwined now. So know all of this...what steps is Trump going to take that are going to be worse than those that a Clinton administration would have engaged in? Without something supporting it, it's just fearmongering. http://imgur.com/gallery/uO2cqtr http://imgur.com/gallery/uO2cqtr
  - Jtsummers 10y ago
    Trump has consistently demonstrated his impulsiveness and lack of restraint in communicating his thoughts. To the point that erroneous statements about some companies have sent their stocks downward. He also claimed, without evidence, that a plane crash that had just occurred was by Islamic terrorists. He also called for a boycott of Apple (though his campaign staff still used their devices) because they wouldn't create a backdoor for the San Bernadino shooter's iPhone. No doubt the Clinton administration would've continued a lot of the same surveillance, but it's unlikely she would've made populist and hyperbolic appeals to the people to turn them into a mob against those like Schneier or companies like Apple who want to protect our privacy (however imperfectly). EDIT: What's Clinton at a Trump wedding matter? Wealthy and powerful people hobnob with wealthy and powerful people. My girlfriend's father is well-connected in Argentina, he attends events at the US Embassy and with other well-connected people. It implies nothing except that people in that strata network and socialize, which is a large part of maintaining their status.
    - aaron-lebo 10y ago
      I'm saying that the Clintons and Trump are a lot closer than people realize: People with knowledge of the call in both camps said it was one of many that Clinton and Trump have had over the years, whether about golf or donations to the Clinton Foundation. But the call in May was considered especially sensitive, coming soon after Hillary Rodham Clinton had declared her own presidential run the month before. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/bill-clinton-called-donald-trump-ahead-of-republicans-2016-launch/2015/08/05/e2b30bb8-3ae3-11e5-b3ac-8a79bc44e5e2_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/bill-clinton-called-... These people being so close makes it strange that the elcetion of one would cause fear while the other would cause things to go on as usual.
      - Jtsummers 10y ago
        You're referencing talks between Mr. Clinton and Mr. Trump, not Mrs. Clinton. And then you try and draw conclusions about how similar Mrs. Clinton's and Mr. Trump's presidencies would have been?

noelwelsh 10y ago

I'm just going to respond to this in the context of this essay. It's very different to notice something and decide to do something about it. One requires much more expenditure of effort than the other. This is about how one person has decided to allocate their budget of effort over the next 4 years. One can reasonably assume they have noticed these problems before.

mhb 10y ago

When "your guy" is in charge, you want him to be powerful so that he can do what you want. We've had over 200 years of never expecting "the other guy" to ever get the power even though every 4/8/12 years he does seem to.

idlewords 10y ago

It is exasperating to read comments like this about Schneier in particular, who has been beating this drum for a long time, and whose anxieties about surveillance and the power it concentrates have been wholly decoupled from the politics of who wields it. What has changed under Trump is that the power is now concentrated in tiny hands that seem particularly like it to abuse it, unconstrained by social norms or political checks. But Schneier wrote entire books about the dangers of surveillance culture back when we all thought Trump was a joke. Before you say things like "why only now", take the two minutes it takes to discover whether this is in fact a new topic for the speaker, or if they have a history of addressing it.

tptacek 10y ago

Nobody on HN is clueful about every subject that comes up on HN. You're not expected to be able to comment intelligently on every story here. However, if you have no substantive contribution to make about a thread --- for instance, because it's about the most famous living cryptographer and you no exposure to cryptography or Internet security --- you are expected not to comment at all. As it stands, you've derailed the whole thread with an objection that to most readers on HN appears completely nonsensical. Whether intended that way or not, this kind of commenting is indistinguishable from trolling. Everyone else: this is why we have a flag button.

aaron-lebo 10y ago
I don't have any problem with you personally, but it's not your job to shut down a thread because you disagree with the author.
- dang 10y ago
  Please don't take this thread any further off topic. A substantive debate about variance or the lack of it in the surveillance policies of successive administrations is on-topic in a thread about surveillance. But arguing about whether you should or shouldn't know who Schneier is, and some of these other things you've posted, are way out in the weeds.
- throwaway291289 10y ago
  You simply criticized the wrong person. Schneier has already fought against the Clipper chip as far as I remember. I agree that we don't know yet whether surveillance will be worse under Trump than under Obama/Clinton. Trump likes to troll and is a bit unpredictable. He has flamed the CIA and apparently invites Musk (green energy). For all we know Schneier will be invited to the transition team next week.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]