6 ms·

I've known Stewart Baker, the ex-NSA GC quoted in the linked article, for about 15 years--not incredibly well, but well enough that he'd show up at parties I he

by declan 12y ago

I've known Stewart Baker, the ex-NSA GC quoted in the linked article, for about 15 years--not incredibly well, but well enough that he'd show up at parties I held in my home when I was living in D.C. before moving to the SF bay area. Stewart is extremely smart, should not be underestimated, and HN comments in this thread calling him "incompetent" reflect badly on the person making the comment. He's likely the single most capable adversary the HN/EFF/ACLU/Cato/Mozilla/etc. axis faces over encryption (if he ends up playing that role). Stewart is correct that end-to-end crypto will "restrict [companies'] ability to sell" products internationally. And he is narrowly correct that "the market for absolute encryption is more limited than you might think" in a corporate environment. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ak4ZwLU3aX0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ak4ZwLU3aX0 [8:45] But these are merely clever rhetorical devices. Of course Apple/Google/FB/etc. know that HTTPS will vex snoophappy governments; at this point I suspect their CEOs may view that as a welcome side effect and in any case know their business better than a DC attorney does. And of course banks and brokerage firms don't want end-to-end encryption for their employees; they have likely have FINRA and other legal obligations to preserve correspondence. Okay, Russia and China are snoophappy and banks may want access to employees' email. Now can we go back to talking about the NSA's bulk surveillance of law-abiding Americans? Stewart's comments at 12:56 about Silicon Valley companies "picking fights" with the NSA are also misleading. In reality, the NSA was "picking fights" by bulk-tapping Google's interdata center links, subverting encryption standards, and (in the 1990s) defending export controls that weakened American companies' ability to compete. I posted more about this here: https://twitter.com/declanm/status/529804398457651201 https://twitter.com/declanm/status/529804398457651201 https://twitter.com/declanm/status/529798596221095937 https://twitter.com/declanm/status/529798596221095937 Today these companies -- and hopefully the startup founders here on HN -- are merely protecting their users by adopting encryption. At http://recent.io/ http://recent.io/, which I founded after leaving CNET/CBS earlier this year, our forthcoming Android and iOS apps use only HTTPS to connect to the backend. Naturally. TLDR: You underestimate Stewart Baker at your peril.

ihsw 12y ago
How do you feel about the assertion that the NSA et al were getting something for free, and all this hubbub about privacy and encryption is simply a smokescreen -- the Google's of the world want their pound of flesh. They see a new and robust revenue stream where the product was being shoplifted, and they're correcting that business oversight. They will give the government what they want, but at a cost. Be it in a dollar amount, backroom hand-greasing, political football, or other otherwise -- the government will pay that cost.
- dpritchett 12y ago
  Increasing the costs of an undesirable activity effectively lowers the incidence of that activity. It's probably easier than trying to prevent it unilaterally, too.
guelo 12y ago
Why does going to your parties make someone not incompetent? In any case his competence is moot, the man is a demagogue and as such should be avoided and ignored.
- declan 12y ago
  Read his book: http://www.skatingonstilts.com/ http://www.skatingonstilts.com/
  - guelo 12y ago
    Sounds like he wants us to be afraid and give up our privacy. Fuck that guy.
    - limsdims 12y ago
      Hear, hear!
- andyjohnson0 12y ago
  "Why does going to your parties make someone not incompetent?" I read this as Declan saying that he and Baker were sufficiently acquainted for him to form a judgement of Baker's competence, with "he'd show up at parties I held" being to clarify the degree of their acquaintance. He's not claiming that they two things are causally connected. And ignoring demagogues is not necessarily a good idea.
AnthonyMouse 12y ago
> Stewart is extremely smart, should not be underestimated, and HN comments in this thread calling him "incompetent" reflect badly on the person making the comment. Incompetent may be the wrong word. What people (including you) are getting at is that his arguments are unpersuasive upon examination. It's all just fear mongering. There are two plausible explanations for this. The first is that he doesn't see the holes in his own arguments; that would substantiate the charge of incompetence. The second is that he does but makes the arguments anyway in order to mislead others who don't. That appears to be the case you're making. But I'm not sure scoundrel is a lesser charge than idiot.
- declan 12y ago
  Welcome to the delightful world of Washington, D.C. realpolitik! A third possibility is that he honestly believes his position is the correct one--or is holding out the possibility of returning to a .gov/.mil job in this or a future administration--and (a) is using the best arguments for his case, however weak or (b) is on a conference panel, not in a courtroom, and is aiming for entertaining one-liners rather than a point-by-point argument that you'd find in a legal brief or congressional testimony.
  - mike_hearn 12y ago
    I didn't find his comments especially entertaining, and I don't think my sense of humour is faulty, so let's rule out the court jester theory. That leaves "using the best arguments for the case he truly believes in, however weak". This I think would correctly fall under the umbrella of incompetence. At some point, rational people are supposed to evaluate their own arguments and change their beliefs if they can't sustain them anymore. In this case he has strongly implied that "tech people" with a libertarian bent are naive and their beliefs crumble the moment they're faced with the real world. Insulting the people you need help from isn't a good start. But regardless, I don't know of any tech companies that have real problems complying with a robust, trustworthy process that includes many checks and balances to ensure only people widely agreed to be criminals get investigated. The whole problem has started because that system has broken down over time and post-Snowden been revealed as nothing more than a political sleight of hand.
Htsthbjig 12y ago
"Stewart is extremely smart, should not be underestimated, and HN comments in this thread calling him "incompetent" reflect badly on the person making the comment. He's likely the single most capable adversary the HN/EFF/ACLU/Cato/Mozilla/etc. axis faces over encryption (if he ends up playing that role)." That someone is smart does not mean that whatever he says is true. In fact some of the smartest people on earth use their intelligence to fool and mislead other people. It is not very smart on this man when he talks about blackberry: "look were blackberry is today". Blackberry in fact did help governments with their encryptions keys. In particular,people that worked for the NSA need to develop a habit of lying to everyone as a morning routine. We know that while the CIA and the NSA were crying loud about how encryption was making them "blind", they were in fact spying on more Americans and non Americans than ever.
tikums 12y ago
NSA old boy Stewart Baker is a fascinating character. Here's what he said at the Economic Warfare Institute at American Center for Democracy in 2012 (before Snowden leaks): "We will map your social graph, compromise every computer and smartphone in your country" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mu9puGKfdZE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mu9puGKfdZE He is a long-time proponent of export controls for cryptography and government mandated escrow-keys. In 1994, he wrote an article for Wired Magazine titled: "Don't Worry Be Happy: Why Clipper Is Good For You". This guy is a cryptowars veteran. So, in a sense--you're right, he's not incompetent. Rather, he is a professional ideologue: making the case against privacy rights that crypto-tech enables. If you have experience with KGB "agitprop" and "active measures", you'll be very familiar with the techniques that these sort of people employ for their cause. We should promptly react to his demagoguery by showing it for what it is--sophistry.
gonzo 12y ago
I assume that Mr. Baker is a competent attorney, well-versed in the subject. But the rhetorical device he used, attempting to pin the demise of Blackberry on their choice to encrypt, is found waiting. Blackberry was defeated by market forces, not a willingness to encrypt user data. The iPhone and Android changed the firmament in the market where Blackberry had been dominant. His attempt at using this aside, his use of "law enforcement needs access" is also found wanting because the NDA, GHCQ, etc are not law-enforcement.

by declan 12y ago

ihsw 12y ago

How do you feel about the assertion that the NSA et al were getting something for free, and all this hubbub about privacy and encryption is simply a smokescreen -- the Google's of the world want their pound of flesh. They see a new and robust revenue stream where the product was being shoplifted, and they're correcting that business oversight. They will give the government what they want, but at a cost. Be it in a dollar amount, backroom hand-greasing, political football, or other otherwise -- the government will pay that cost.

dpritchett 12y ago
Increasing the costs of an undesirable activity effectively lowers the incidence of that activity. It's probably easier than trying to prevent it unilaterally, too.

guelo 12y ago

Why does going to your parties make someone not incompetent? In any case his competence is moot, the man is a demagogue and as such should be avoided and ignored.

declan 12y ago
Read his book: http://www.skatingonstilts.com/ http://www.skatingonstilts.com/
- guelo 12y ago
  Sounds like he wants us to be afraid and give up our privacy. Fuck that guy.
  - limsdims 12y ago
    Hear, hear!
andyjohnson0 12y ago
"Why does going to your parties make someone not incompetent?" I read this as Declan saying that he and Baker were sufficiently acquainted for him to form a judgement of Baker's competence, with "he'd show up at parties I held" being to clarify the degree of their acquaintance. He's not claiming that they two things are causally connected. And ignoring demagogues is not necessarily a good idea.

AnthonyMouse 12y ago

> Stewart is extremely smart, should not be underestimated, and HN comments in this thread calling him "incompetent" reflect badly on the person making the comment. Incompetent may be the wrong word. What people (including you) are getting at is that his arguments are unpersuasive upon examination. It's all just fear mongering. There are two plausible explanations for this. The first is that he doesn't see the holes in his own arguments; that would substantiate the charge of incompetence. The second is that he does but makes the arguments anyway in order to mislead others who don't. That appears to be the case you're making. But I'm not sure scoundrel is a lesser charge than idiot.

declan 12y ago
Welcome to the delightful world of Washington, D.C. realpolitik! A third possibility is that he honestly believes his position is the correct one--or is holding out the possibility of returning to a .gov/.mil job in this or a future administration--and (a) is using the best arguments for his case, however weak or (b) is on a conference panel, not in a courtroom, and is aiming for entertaining one-liners rather than a point-by-point argument that you'd find in a legal brief or congressional testimony.
- mike_hearn 12y ago
  I didn't find his comments especially entertaining, and I don't think my sense of humour is faulty, so let's rule out the court jester theory. That leaves "using the best arguments for the case he truly believes in, however weak". This I think would correctly fall under the umbrella of incompetence. At some point, rational people are supposed to evaluate their own arguments and change their beliefs if they can't sustain them anymore. In this case he has strongly implied that "tech people" with a libertarian bent are naive and their beliefs crumble the moment they're faced with the real world. Insulting the people you need help from isn't a good start. But regardless, I don't know of any tech companies that have real problems complying with a robust, trustworthy process that includes many checks and balances to ensure only people widely agreed to be criminals get investigated. The whole problem has started because that system has broken down over time and post-Snowden been revealed as nothing more than a political sleight of hand.

Htsthbjig 12y ago

"Stewart is extremely smart, should not be underestimated, and HN comments in this thread calling him "incompetent" reflect badly on the person making the comment. He's likely the single most capable adversary the HN/EFF/ACLU/Cato/Mozilla/etc. axis faces over encryption (if he ends up playing that role)." That someone is smart does not mean that whatever he says is true. In fact some of the smartest people on earth use their intelligence to fool and mislead other people. It is not very smart on this man when he talks about blackberry: "look were blackberry is today". Blackberry in fact did help governments with their encryptions keys. In particular,people that worked for the NSA need to develop a habit of lying to everyone as a morning routine. We know that while the CIA and the NSA were crying loud about how encryption was making them "blind", they were in fact spying on more Americans and non Americans than ever.

tikums 12y ago

NSA old boy Stewart Baker is a fascinating character. Here's what he said at the Economic Warfare Institute at American Center for Democracy in 2012 (before Snowden leaks): "We will map your social graph, compromise every computer and smartphone in your country" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mu9puGKfdZE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mu9puGKfdZE He is a long-time proponent of export controls for cryptography and government mandated escrow-keys. In 1994, he wrote an article for Wired Magazine titled: "Don't Worry Be Happy: Why Clipper Is Good For You". This guy is a cryptowars veteran. So, in a sense--you're right, he's not incompetent. Rather, he is a professional ideologue: making the case against privacy rights that crypto-tech enables. If you have experience with KGB "agitprop" and "active measures", you'll be very familiar with the techniques that these sort of people employ for their cause. We should promptly react to his demagoguery by showing it for what it is--sophistry.

gonzo 12y ago

I assume that Mr. Baker is a competent attorney, well-versed in the subject. But the rhetorical device he used, attempting to pin the demise of Blackberry on their choice to encrypt, is found waiting. Blackberry was defeated by market forces, not a willingness to encrypt user data. The iPhone and Android changed the firmament in the market where Blackberry had been dominant. His attempt at using this aside, his use of "law enforcement needs access" is also found wanting because the NDA, GHCQ, etc are not law-enforcement.