3 ms·

But he used that in advocating a "common sense" approach to security. It's nothing but a vague non-statement that government needs to make reasonable decisions.

by ewzimm 10y ago

But he used that in advocating a "common sense" approach to security. It's nothing but a vague non-statement that government needs to make reasonable decisions. Your response is going to depend entirely on your opinion of Trump and his administration's judgment. If you support it, you'll support the statement, but if you oppose it, that statement changes nothing, because you always knew the administration was going to use their own version of "common sense" to make decisions. So your reaction says nothing about Trump and just hints at your existing biases, which is fine, but no argument for concern.

ajamesm 10y ago
"We have to open it" means "we have to make apple turn over decrypted communication." The next point in this argument involves a sentence diagram and a dictionary. Do we have to go there?
- freehunter 10y ago
  And his opponent had said even worse things, and committed even worse actions against the practice of information security. If hackers are scared of Trump, they should be downright grateful that Clinton didn't win. And I say this as a member of the info sec community who most certainly did not vote for Trump. There are very few politicians in the US that could be considered "good" for hackers, present administration included. Trump hasn't said or done anything that our current government hasn't already said or done.
  - ajamesm 10y ago
    I guess we could have a long conversation about whether it's Clinton or Trump who would have ultimately been worse in terms of national infosec implications, but that conclusion is far away from "Trump is not bad for infosec, actually" especially when you look back further than the Obama administration and remember that the US government used to classify cryptography as literal munitions.
pfranz 10y ago
(I think candidates in both parties past, present, and future have been daft on this) A "common sense" approach to security is basically, "of course good guys should have access." Reality means that, "well, sometimes nobody has access." We can work on a compromise, but that's going to be a long, thoughtful, nuanced conversation that should happen in the open--which nobody seems to want. Feel free to call it "bias," for me it's "context" based on past behaviors. Trump is very reactionary, flagrantly ignores facts (at least when talking to the public), and seems unwilling to look at what was sacrificed to achieve what he advocates. If he treats emails that way I think he'll have as much luck as the last person did. I was actually surprised and disappointed to find how other government officials seem to disregard privacy. Knowing Trump's history, I'm not surprised and concerned how things would get pushed further. No matter who won I think we should be louder and be fighting back.

by ewzimm 10y ago

ajamesm 10y ago

"We have to open it" means "we have to make apple turn over decrypted communication." The next point in this argument involves a sentence diagram and a dictionary. Do we have to go there?

freehunter 10y ago
And his opponent had said even worse things, and committed even worse actions against the practice of information security. If hackers are scared of Trump, they should be downright grateful that Clinton didn't win. And I say this as a member of the info sec community who most certainly did not vote for Trump. There are very few politicians in the US that could be considered "good" for hackers, present administration included. Trump hasn't said or done anything that our current government hasn't already said or done.
- ajamesm 10y ago
  I guess we could have a long conversation about whether it's Clinton or Trump who would have ultimately been worse in terms of national infosec implications, but that conclusion is far away from "Trump is not bad for infosec, actually" especially when you look back further than the Obama administration and remember that the US government used to classify cryptography as literal munitions.

pfranz 10y ago

(I think candidates in both parties past, present, and future have been daft on this) A "common sense" approach to security is basically, "of course good guys should have access." Reality means that, "well, sometimes nobody has access." We can work on a compromise, but that's going to be a long, thoughtful, nuanced conversation that should happen in the open--which nobody seems to want. Feel free to call it "bias," for me it's "context" based on past behaviors. Trump is very reactionary, flagrantly ignores facts (at least when talking to the public), and seems unwilling to look at what was sacrificed to achieve what he advocates. If he treats emails that way I think he'll have as much luck as the last person did. I was actually surprised and disappointed to find how other government officials seem to disregard privacy. Knowing Trump's history, I'm not surprised and concerned how things would get pushed further. No matter who won I think we should be louder and be fighting back.