5 ms·

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?
        aaron-lebo 10y ago
        People that have been married for decades tend to be pretty similar.
        Jtsummers 10y ago
        Can you offer evidence, then, that Hillary Clinton by way of Bill Clinton would have had a very similar set of policies to Donald Trump based on the apparent personal connection between Bill and Donald and the marital relationship between Hillary and Bill? Or is this all just nonsense?
        deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
        DonHopkins 10y ago
  - naasking 10y ago
    > Why should we fear a Trump administration more? Because Trump explicitly campaigned on going after journalists and his critics. He literally said he was going to rewrite slander and libel laws so he could sue people who criticized him. He's also probably one of the most litigious people in America, so it's not just talk. How do you not know all this? Did you not pay attention to the election?
  - rajangdavis 10y ago
    I could be wrong, but I think there is a difference in that with Clinton, there was an expectation of what kind of administration she was going to have. Trump, on the other hand, has been unpredictable since his election (I speak more about his inclusion of Elon Musk into his advisory council as well as Bill Gates comparing him to JFK). I think an administration that is business-minded can yield great economic prosperity but might not necessarily have interests in maintaining the rights of American citizens.
    - MrZongle2 10y ago
      "I think an administration that is business-minded can yield great economic prosperity but might not necessarily have interests in maintaining the rights of American citizens." I don't think we've seen an administration in the last 25 years that had an interest in maintaining the rights of American citizens.
      - pasquinelli 10y ago
        And have any failed to be business-minded?
        rajangdavis 10y ago
        I think to the extent of limiting expenditures and generating revenue, I can only recall Clinton's administration as one that actually created a surplus. In this regard, I posit government officials do not necessarily tend to act this way (at the expense of American tax dollars).
        pasquinelli 10y ago
        I understood business-minded to mean sympathetic to the desire of the business community.
        rajangdavis 10y ago
        No worries, that's why I tried to clarify (hopefully I did). I agree with you wholeheartedly.
  - Clubber 10y ago
    I'm not sure why you are getting so many down votes, it's a legitimate point. We tend to forget that it was Obama who was in his second term when the Snowden revelations hit the papers. It was Obama who approved the drone strikes on US citizens. It was Obama who was in charge during Manning's court martial, conviction and sentencing. I appreciate the complexities of each decision, but it shows he understood and accepted the usefulness of the systems in place. Hillary is a hawk, I don't recall her speaking out against the NSA or drone strikes. I do recall Feinstein, a senior Democrat Chair in the Senate politicking for surveillance. It seems Trump is less interventionist that what we've seen in the past 30 years from both parties in Congress. Perhaps that in and of itself will lessen the massiveness of our surveillance systems, perhaps not. If you take a step back, realize that political parties are private entities that try to get their members elected into power, and they spend a lot of money convincing the citizenry they are the right choice. If it were Exxon-Mobile doing the same thing, you would have pause, even if they were saying the right things. I'm not saying that Trump's administration will not be a complete disaster, but that remains to be seen.
    - eli_gottlieb 10y ago
      >If it were Exxon-Mobile doing the same thing, you would have pause, even if they were saying the right things. The CEO of Exxon-Mobil is going to be Secretary of State.
      - Clubber 10y ago
        Yes, I'm aware of that, but being Secretary of State and putting candidates in elections every year while only allowing 1 other real competitor (the other party) to compete are completely different levels. Imagine if there was the Republican party and the Exxon-Mobile party.
        eli_gottlieb 10y ago
        I don't have to imagine. North Carolina is actually changing which powers are allocated to which offices based on the fact that a Democrat won the election. The country is becoming a one-party state.

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?
      - aaron-lebo 10y ago
        People that have been married for decades tend to be pretty similar.
        Jtsummers 10y ago
        Can you offer evidence, then, that Hillary Clinton by way of Bill Clinton would have had a very similar set of policies to Donald Trump based on the apparent personal connection between Bill and Donald and the marital relationship between Hillary and Bill? Or is this all just nonsense?
        deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
        DonHopkins 10y ago
- naasking 10y ago
  > Why should we fear a Trump administration more? Because Trump explicitly campaigned on going after journalists and his critics. He literally said he was going to rewrite slander and libel laws so he could sue people who criticized him. He's also probably one of the most litigious people in America, so it's not just talk. How do you not know all this? Did you not pay attention to the election?
- rajangdavis 10y ago
  I could be wrong, but I think there is a difference in that with Clinton, there was an expectation of what kind of administration she was going to have. Trump, on the other hand, has been unpredictable since his election (I speak more about his inclusion of Elon Musk into his advisory council as well as Bill Gates comparing him to JFK). I think an administration that is business-minded can yield great economic prosperity but might not necessarily have interests in maintaining the rights of American citizens.
  - MrZongle2 10y ago
    "I think an administration that is business-minded can yield great economic prosperity but might not necessarily have interests in maintaining the rights of American citizens." I don't think we've seen an administration in the last 25 years that had an interest in maintaining the rights of American citizens.
    - pasquinelli 10y ago
      And have any failed to be business-minded?
      - rajangdavis 10y ago
        I think to the extent of limiting expenditures and generating revenue, I can only recall Clinton's administration as one that actually created a surplus. In this regard, I posit government officials do not necessarily tend to act this way (at the expense of American tax dollars).
        pasquinelli 10y ago
        I understood business-minded to mean sympathetic to the desire of the business community.
        rajangdavis 10y ago
        No worries, that's why I tried to clarify (hopefully I did). I agree with you wholeheartedly.
- Clubber 10y ago
  I'm not sure why you are getting so many down votes, it's a legitimate point. We tend to forget that it was Obama who was in his second term when the Snowden revelations hit the papers. It was Obama who approved the drone strikes on US citizens. It was Obama who was in charge during Manning's court martial, conviction and sentencing. I appreciate the complexities of each decision, but it shows he understood and accepted the usefulness of the systems in place. Hillary is a hawk, I don't recall her speaking out against the NSA or drone strikes. I do recall Feinstein, a senior Democrat Chair in the Senate politicking for surveillance. It seems Trump is less interventionist that what we've seen in the past 30 years from both parties in Congress. Perhaps that in and of itself will lessen the massiveness of our surveillance systems, perhaps not. If you take a step back, realize that political parties are private entities that try to get their members elected into power, and they spend a lot of money convincing the citizenry they are the right choice. If it were Exxon-Mobile doing the same thing, you would have pause, even if they were saying the right things. I'm not saying that Trump's administration will not be a complete disaster, but that remains to be seen.
  - eli_gottlieb 10y ago
    >If it were Exxon-Mobile doing the same thing, you would have pause, even if they were saying the right things. The CEO of Exxon-Mobil is going to be Secretary of State.
    - Clubber 10y ago
      Yes, I'm aware of that, but being Secretary of State and putting candidates in elections every year while only allowing 1 other real competitor (the other party) to compete are completely different levels. Imagine if there was the Republican party and the Exxon-Mobile party.
      - eli_gottlieb 10y ago
        I don't have to imagine. North Carolina is actually changing which powers are allocated to which offices based on the fact that a Democrat won the election. The country is becoming a one-party state.