45 ms·

Truly incredible. The infosec community baffles me, when it comes to politics. I'm no fan of Trump, but the unfounded and apoplectic reactions from the likes o

by thraway2016 10y ago

Truly incredible. The infosec community baffles me, when it comes to politics. I'm no fan of Trump, but the unfounded and apoplectic reactions from the likes of Matt Blaze, Swift on Security, the grugq, Jon Zdziarski, halvarflake, netik, kragen, etc, are batshit crazy. There is absolutely no evidence that a Trump administration poses any threat at all to infosec, and by many measures represents a better option than the alternative. Trump's former opponent is on record clamoring for a "Manhattan Project style" effort to undermine crypto, and 2600's readership is concerned with the man whose worst security-related gaffe is a vague suggestion about "[calling] up Bill Gates". I really don't understand these nominally rational people, when it comes to politics.

ajamesm 10y ago
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/think-donald-trump-blasts-apple-133241253.html http://finance.yahoo.com/news/think-donald-trump-blasts-appl... > "To think that Apple won't allow us to get into her cellphone? Who do they think they are? No, we have to open it," Trump said during an interview on "Fox & Friends." > The Republican presidential front-runner called it a matter of common sense: > I agree 100% with the courts. In that case, we should open it up. I think security overall — we have to open it up. And we have to use our heads. We have to use common sense. Somebody the other day called me a common-sense conservative. We have to use common sense. Our country has so many problems.
- ewzimm 10y ago
  Not trying to be mean, but are you saying that Trump represents a new and terrifying threat to infosec because he "agrees 100%" with the existing courts and administration?
  - burkaman 10y ago
    He doesn't "agree 100%" with the courts. Saying it doesn't make it true. He likely has no idea what the courts think about this issue, and doesn't really care.
    - ewzimm 10y ago
      I'm just responding to what was quoted here saying he agrees with the courts. Was there something in this interview or another that contradicts that?
      - burkaman 10y ago
        Trump doesn't generally take concrete positions, so I can't find any other meaningful quote from him on surveillance or encryption or anything like that. If you're just asking in general, he has disagreed with the courts many times, such as on Roe v. Wade or his own lawsuits. This quote in isolation is still not great, what does "I think security overall — we have to open it up" mean? But looking at it in isolation is obviously not very useful. Combine it with his lack of a position on many other important issues, and his cabinet picks so far.
        ewzimm 10y ago
        He was obviously talking about agreeing with the courts in this case, not every matter, which wouldn't even be a rational statement since courts disagree. He does speak in generalities, but so does every politician. He's often especially vague, for sure. That doesn't seem to be a legitimate reason for so many people to project their worst fears onto every generality, to the point of hysteria.
        burkaman 10y ago
        Well, the only really concrete actions he's been able to take so far have been announcing cabinet appointments, and so far they're confirming those hysterical peoples' fears. So maybe they have a point. All politicians speak in vague generalities, but most have a record. When a president has no record and no position, I think it is reasonable to prepare for the worst, just in case.
        makomk 10y ago
        When he appointed someone who was apparently under serious consideration for Clinton's cabinet too, that still confirmed those hysterical people's fears. It's almost like they're not actually falsifiable in any way.
  - strathmeyer 10y ago
    No, you were supposed to read the whole thing.
    - ewzimm 10y ago
      The government took the position that Apple should unlock the phone. Trump said he agreed. Which part did I miss? I'm honestly curious.
      - ajamesm 10y ago
        the "Apple should unlock the phone" part
        ewzimm 10y ago
        "Apple Inc. has received and objected to or challenged at least 11 orders" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/FBI–Apple_encryption_dispute https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/FBI–Apple_encryption_dispute I'm not sure what I'm missing here. The position of the government was pretty clear that "Apple should unlock the phone," until the FBI did it independently. Personally, I agree with Apple's position. Security requires trust, and Apple showed good reason to trust them, enough that I went out and bought an iPhone. But I have no idea how Trump agreeing with the courts and the FBI shows some kind of radical new threat.
        toss1941 10y ago
        That Apple saga was quite an interesting view into American politics. If you ask me, Trump and a lot of the government is out of touch with Privacy rights. The opposite battle is taking place with free speech in Canada[0], with the government wanting to curtail free speech in the name of preferred pronouns referencing gender. In both cases, the Government wants to harm free speech, but I think many people who are against it in Apple's case would be for it in Canada's. I could be wrong though. [0] http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-37875695 http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-37875695
        ajamesm 10y ago
SEJeff 10y ago
And there was that one thing about forcing Apple to put a backdoor in IOS and then calling for a boycott on their products when they refused, but no, undermining security is totally cool. The Grugq definitely doesn't know anything about security.
burkaman 10y ago
How about appointing an attorney general who opposed FISA reform and the USA Freedom Act (limiting the NSA), and tried to amend the Email Privacy Act to allow federal agents to read electronic communications without a warrant in an "emergency situation"? Also, appointing a CIA director who wants to bring back the Patriot Act and supports the death penalty for Snowden.
sammydavis 10y ago
The simple answer is this worry is very founded because of the people he nominates and the statements he has made about how the govt should have access to cell phones. Yes, HRC made some stupid plans of her own. Trump is worse.
AnOscelot 10y ago
It's not batshit crazy. It's the responsible response. Trump's said plenty of disturbing things. Both in his political run and in his 30+ years in the public eye. He's erratic, petty, prone to seeking revenge, and extremely thin-skinned. Americans should have never given this guy power, but they did. The most responsible thing 2600 et al could do is warn people and be prepared for the worst. If the worst happens, people need to be prepared already and not taking panicked steps at the last minute. History is full of examples of people thinking the incoming leader didn't mean all the awful things he said. It's best to believe what the leader has said and take appropriate action. There's a chance of looking crazy if Trump ends up not being as bad as his words indicate, but that's a chance worth taking considering the harsh and very possible alternatives.
- jack9 10y ago
  > It's not batshit crazy. It's the responsible response. I think it's batshit crazy. He's not sophisticated enough to understand how to manipulate currency (he delegates everything, not discusses or strategizes like Obama). Without strategy, there's nothing to hide from. Nobody has ever addressed stenography (although that was a big thing in the 90s), so what kind of headway from a noncommittal populist is there to be had? Fearing Trump is misunderstanding the situation. How hackers manage that, is a constant source of amusement.
  - norea-armozel 10y ago
    Delegating doesn't imply he knows wtf he's doing. The fact he nearly scuttled his fortunes in the early 90s indicates a complete and utter lack of understanding of business on his part.
    - jack9 10y ago
      > Delegating doesn't imply he knows wtf he's doing That was the intentional implication. Political power does not block technology, it just changes it. An honored publication, acting like a kid's magazine posting some hand waving about the scary times, is laughable. You know who is going to be set back? RMS, and he knows it. This administration has some knowledge about IP.
ubernostrum 10y ago
People are reacting to the statements, proposed initiatives and official nominations of president-elect Trump, on grounds that they have no other evidence to go on than to take him at his word and believe that he is proposing things which, and nominating people whose ideas jive with, his views. The only rational thing we can do is judge the man by his words, policies and actions. And those look absolutely dismal.
mcphage 10y ago
> I'm no fan of Trump, but the unfounded and apoplectic reactions from the likes of Matt Blaze, Swift on Security, the grugq, Jon Zdziarski, halvarflake, netik, kragen, etc, are batshit crazy. Well, someone is clearly reacting incorrectly. Maybe it's Schneier, 2600, Matt Blaze, Swift on Security, the grugq, Jon Zdziarski, halvarflake, netik, kragen, etc. And maybe it's you. Which side it is, is currently up to everyone to decide for themselves. But I know who I trust more.
- sp332 10y ago
  They could each be reacting "correctly" since they might have very different outcomes. Still not an excuse for dismissing those people as crazy, but you don't have to be afraid for yourself to be not-crazy.
- toss1941 10y ago
  He didn't cite Schneier did he? I really like Schneier and while i'm pretty sure of his political leanings, he doesn't seem to be the type of guy that would abandon his love of logic and reason for some political temper tantrums. Anyway I will admit I felt compelled to un-follow a couple people on Twitter, and muted some that I normally find very entertaining (swift on security being one of them) because they are channeling their political grief in ways that make them look very foolish to me. How can I trust their logic if they claim or suggest that Trump is going to lock up gay people or will preemptively fire nukes on day 1? There is a massive amount of lies and unfounded propaganda that was put out in the media against Trump that never was nor ever will be true.
  - mcphage 10y ago
    > He didn't cite Schneier did he? The person I was replying to did not. But he has weighed in on the matter. From https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2016/12/my_priorities_f.html https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2016/12/my_priorities...: "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. It's more than I can possibly do on my own, and I am therefore substantially increasing my annual philanthropy to support organizations like EPIC, EFF, ACLU, and Access Now in continuing their work in these areas. My agenda is necessarily focused entirely on my particular areas of concern. The risks of a Trump presidency are far more pernicious, but this is where I have expertise and influence." > I really like Schneier and while i'm pretty sure of his political leanings, he doesn't seem to be the type of guy that would abandon his love of logic and reason for some political temper tantrums. You're right, he doesn't. That's my point.
snowwrestler 10y ago
> Trump's former opponent is on record clamoring for a "Manhattan Project style" effort to undermine crypto While Clinton did call for a "Manhattan Project," it was not to "undermine crypto." In fact she said in a townhall that she opposed back doors, which puts her on the right side a line that Trump is on the wrong side of--he said that Apple should be compelled to build the backdoor that FBI asked for. And now we have reporting that her advisors knew the reality of encryption and were working on education her. The scariest things about Trump are 1) he shows no inclination to study or understand complex policy subjects, of which infosec is certainly one, 2) he has policy proposals that will require extremely invasive info technologies to work, like a Muslim registry and mass deportation of immigrants, and 3) he reacts aggressively and impulsively to any criticism or disagreement, which the infosec delivers in spades.

ajamesm 10y ago

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/think-donald-trump-blasts-apple-133241253.html http://finance.yahoo.com/news/think-donald-trump-blasts-appl... > "To think that Apple won't allow us to get into her cellphone? Who do they think they are? No, we have to open it," Trump said during an interview on "Fox & Friends." > The Republican presidential front-runner called it a matter of common sense: > I agree 100% with the courts. In that case, we should open it up. I think security overall — we have to open it up. And we have to use our heads. We have to use common sense. Somebody the other day called me a common-sense conservative. We have to use common sense. Our country has so many problems.

ewzimm 10y ago
Not trying to be mean, but are you saying that Trump represents a new and terrifying threat to infosec because he "agrees 100%" with the existing courts and administration?
- burkaman 10y ago
  He doesn't "agree 100%" with the courts. Saying it doesn't make it true. He likely has no idea what the courts think about this issue, and doesn't really care.
  - ewzimm 10y ago
    I'm just responding to what was quoted here saying he agrees with the courts. Was there something in this interview or another that contradicts that?
    - burkaman 10y ago
      Trump doesn't generally take concrete positions, so I can't find any other meaningful quote from him on surveillance or encryption or anything like that. If you're just asking in general, he has disagreed with the courts many times, such as on Roe v. Wade or his own lawsuits. This quote in isolation is still not great, what does "I think security overall — we have to open it up" mean? But looking at it in isolation is obviously not very useful. Combine it with his lack of a position on many other important issues, and his cabinet picks so far.
      - ewzimm 10y ago
        He was obviously talking about agreeing with the courts in this case, not every matter, which wouldn't even be a rational statement since courts disagree. He does speak in generalities, but so does every politician. He's often especially vague, for sure. That doesn't seem to be a legitimate reason for so many people to project their worst fears onto every generality, to the point of hysteria.
        burkaman 10y ago
        Well, the only really concrete actions he's been able to take so far have been announcing cabinet appointments, and so far they're confirming those hysterical peoples' fears. So maybe they have a point. All politicians speak in vague generalities, but most have a record. When a president has no record and no position, I think it is reasonable to prepare for the worst, just in case.
        makomk 10y ago
        When he appointed someone who was apparently under serious consideration for Clinton's cabinet too, that still confirmed those hysterical people's fears. It's almost like they're not actually falsifiable in any way.
- strathmeyer 10y ago
  No, you were supposed to read the whole thing.
  - ewzimm 10y ago
    The government took the position that Apple should unlock the phone. Trump said he agreed. Which part did I miss? I'm honestly curious.
    - ajamesm 10y ago
      the "Apple should unlock the phone" part
      - ewzimm 10y ago
        "Apple Inc. has received and objected to or challenged at least 11 orders" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/FBI–Apple_encryption_dispute https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/FBI–Apple_encryption_dispute I'm not sure what I'm missing here. The position of the government was pretty clear that "Apple should unlock the phone," until the FBI did it independently. Personally, I agree with Apple's position. Security requires trust, and Apple showed good reason to trust them, enough that I went out and bought an iPhone. But I have no idea how Trump agreeing with the courts and the FBI shows some kind of radical new threat.
      - toss1941 10y ago
        That Apple saga was quite an interesting view into American politics. If you ask me, Trump and a lot of the government is out of touch with Privacy rights. The opposite battle is taking place with free speech in Canada[0], with the government wanting to curtail free speech in the name of preferred pronouns referencing gender. In both cases, the Government wants to harm free speech, but I think many people who are against it in Apple's case would be for it in Canada's. I could be wrong though. [0] http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-37875695 http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-37875695
        ajamesm 10y ago

SEJeff 10y ago

And there was that one thing about forcing Apple to put a backdoor in IOS and then calling for a boycott on their products when they refused, but no, undermining security is totally cool. The Grugq definitely doesn't know anything about security.

burkaman 10y ago

How about appointing an attorney general who opposed FISA reform and the USA Freedom Act (limiting the NSA), and tried to amend the Email Privacy Act to allow federal agents to read electronic communications without a warrant in an "emergency situation"? Also, appointing a CIA director who wants to bring back the Patriot Act and supports the death penalty for Snowden.

sammydavis 10y ago

The simple answer is this worry is very founded because of the people he nominates and the statements he has made about how the govt should have access to cell phones. Yes, HRC made some stupid plans of her own. Trump is worse.

AnOscelot 10y ago

It's not batshit crazy. It's the responsible response. Trump's said plenty of disturbing things. Both in his political run and in his 30+ years in the public eye. He's erratic, petty, prone to seeking revenge, and extremely thin-skinned. Americans should have never given this guy power, but they did. The most responsible thing 2600 et al could do is warn people and be prepared for the worst. If the worst happens, people need to be prepared already and not taking panicked steps at the last minute. History is full of examples of people thinking the incoming leader didn't mean all the awful things he said. It's best to believe what the leader has said and take appropriate action. There's a chance of looking crazy if Trump ends up not being as bad as his words indicate, but that's a chance worth taking considering the harsh and very possible alternatives.

jack9 10y ago
> It's not batshit crazy. It's the responsible response. I think it's batshit crazy. He's not sophisticated enough to understand how to manipulate currency (he delegates everything, not discusses or strategizes like Obama). Without strategy, there's nothing to hide from. Nobody has ever addressed stenography (although that was a big thing in the 90s), so what kind of headway from a noncommittal populist is there to be had? Fearing Trump is misunderstanding the situation. How hackers manage that, is a constant source of amusement.
- norea-armozel 10y ago
  Delegating doesn't imply he knows wtf he's doing. The fact he nearly scuttled his fortunes in the early 90s indicates a complete and utter lack of understanding of business on his part.
  - jack9 10y ago
    > Delegating doesn't imply he knows wtf he's doing That was the intentional implication. Political power does not block technology, it just changes it. An honored publication, acting like a kid's magazine posting some hand waving about the scary times, is laughable. You know who is going to be set back? RMS, and he knows it. This administration has some knowledge about IP.

ubernostrum 10y ago

People are reacting to the statements, proposed initiatives and official nominations of president-elect Trump, on grounds that they have no other evidence to go on than to take him at his word and believe that he is proposing things which, and nominating people whose ideas jive with, his views. The only rational thing we can do is judge the man by his words, policies and actions. And those look absolutely dismal.

mcphage 10y ago

> I'm no fan of Trump, but the unfounded and apoplectic reactions from the likes of Matt Blaze, Swift on Security, the grugq, Jon Zdziarski, halvarflake, netik, kragen, etc, are batshit crazy. Well, someone is clearly reacting incorrectly. Maybe it's Schneier, 2600, Matt Blaze, Swift on Security, the grugq, Jon Zdziarski, halvarflake, netik, kragen, etc. And maybe it's you. Which side it is, is currently up to everyone to decide for themselves. But I know who I trust more.

sp332 10y ago
They could each be reacting "correctly" since they might have very different outcomes. Still not an excuse for dismissing those people as crazy, but you don't have to be afraid for yourself to be not-crazy.
toss1941 10y ago
He didn't cite Schneier did he? I really like Schneier and while i'm pretty sure of his political leanings, he doesn't seem to be the type of guy that would abandon his love of logic and reason for some political temper tantrums. Anyway I will admit I felt compelled to un-follow a couple people on Twitter, and muted some that I normally find very entertaining (swift on security being one of them) because they are channeling their political grief in ways that make them look very foolish to me. How can I trust their logic if they claim or suggest that Trump is going to lock up gay people or will preemptively fire nukes on day 1? There is a massive amount of lies and unfounded propaganda that was put out in the media against Trump that never was nor ever will be true.
- mcphage 10y ago
  > He didn't cite Schneier did he? The person I was replying to did not. But he has weighed in on the matter. From https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2016/12/my_priorities_f.html https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2016/12/my_priorities...: "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. It's more than I can possibly do on my own, and I am therefore substantially increasing my annual philanthropy to support organizations like EPIC, EFF, ACLU, and Access Now in continuing their work in these areas. My agenda is necessarily focused entirely on my particular areas of concern. The risks of a Trump presidency are far more pernicious, but this is where I have expertise and influence." > I really like Schneier and while i'm pretty sure of his political leanings, he doesn't seem to be the type of guy that would abandon his love of logic and reason for some political temper tantrums. You're right, he doesn't. That's my point.

snowwrestler 10y ago

> Trump's former opponent is on record clamoring for a "Manhattan Project style" effort to undermine crypto While Clinton did call for a "Manhattan Project," it was not to "undermine crypto." In fact she said in a townhall that she opposed back doors, which puts her on the right side a line that Trump is on the wrong side of--he said that Apple should be compelled to build the backdoor that FBI asked for. And now we have reporting that her advisors knew the reality of encryption and were working on education her. The scariest things about Trump are 1) he shows no inclination to study or understand complex policy subjects, of which infosec is certainly one, 2) he has policy proposals that will require extremely invasive info technologies to work, like a Muslim registry and mass deportation of immigrants, and 3) he reacts aggressively and impulsively to any criticism or disagreement, which the infosec delivers in spades.