Hillary joins the authoritarian bandwagon demanding encryption backdoors in our devices.

[backscatter712]

Told you she's a bad candidate. She's gone full Feinstein.

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20151119/18032932868/hillary-clinton-joins-make-silicon-valley-break-encryption-bandwagon.shtml

Hillary Clinton Joins The 'Make Silicon Valley Break Encryption' Bandwagon

from the are-there-any-good-presidential-candidates? dept

Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton gave a speech yesterday all about the fight against ISIS in the wake of the Paris attacks. While most of the attention (quite reasonably so) on the speech was about her plan to deal with ISIS, as well as her comments on the ridiculous political hot potato of how to deal with Syrian refugees, she still used the opportunity to align herself with the idiotic side of the encryption debate, suggesting that Silicon Valley has to somehow "fix" the issue of law enforcement wanting to see everything. Here's what she said:

Another challenge is how to strike the right balance of protecting privacy and security. Encryption of mobile communications presents a particularly tough problem. We should take the concerns of law enforcement and counterterrorism professionals seriously. They have warned that impenetrable encryption may prevent them from accessing terrorist communications and preventing a future attack. On the other hand, we know there are legitimate concerns about government intrusion, network security, and creating new vulnerabilities that bad actors can and would exploit. So we need Silicon Valley not to view government as its adversary. We need to challenge our best minds in the private sector to work with our best minds in the public sector to develop solutions that will both keep us safe and protect our privacy.

Now is the time to solve this problem, not after the next attack.

It does not. Weakening encryption undermines both security and privacy. There's no "balance" to be had here. You want to maximize both security and privacy and the way you do that is with strong encryption.

Also, the bit about "Silicon Valley" has to "not view government as its adversary" is another bullshit line that has been favored by James Comey and others, who keep insisting that when technologists explain to him that backdooring encryption in a manner that only "the good guys" can use it is impossible that they really mean they haven't tried hard enough. Once again, that's not it. What pretty much the entire tech community has been saying is that it's impossible to create such a thing without undermining the whole thing and making everyone less safe. Hell, here's security expert Steve Bellovin explaining this pretty clearly. He goes step by step through why it won't work, why it makes things more dangerous, why it will be abused, and why it will put us all at risk.

What can I say? These creeps always have this sort of policy, already written up, and sitting in a drawer, waiting for the next moral panic so they can trot it out again. Back in the 90's they tried to force the Clipper chip down our throats and keep bans on strong encryption. Thankfully, they failed. Now they're trying again. They cite either terrorists or child molesters, and demonize all of us who've worked in the tech business when we say, completely mathematically factually, that it is impossible to make a security vulnerability that only the good guys can use, but the bad guys can't.

And it all depends on your definition of "good guys" - I assume they mean law enforcement, but as we're seeing cops beating the shit out of unarmed minorities every single day right here on DU, the definition of "good guy" has gotten pretty loose...

[JaneyVee]

1. Yeah, protecting privacy and security = bad candidate.

[backscatter712]

2. Hillary's doing about the exact opposite of protecting privacy and security. n/t

[Warren Stupidity]

5. And there it is.

The rovian 180 spin.

[pinebox]

39. Give me a break

You are honestly defending this? The Gov't has ZERO business in my personal info or yours.
Hillary, the party of Big Brother. GTFO!

[JonLeibowitz]

42. It is impossible to reliably ban encryption; you can however weaken security (a "Bad Thing")

Encryption is just math. You can't ban an idea. There are a myriad of open source programs that do encryption for secure communication that the NSA has no hope of cracking (PGP/GnuPG). The terrorists know this, they aren't stupid.

The only result of this is a more authoritarian United States, which is not the republic engendered in our constitution.

This is all not to mention the fact that there is no evidence to suggest that lack of law enforcement access to encrypted communications had any role in the Paris Attack; this is a naked authoritarian power grab.

Sources:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/18/opinion/mass-surveillance-isnt-the-answer-to-fighting-terrorism.html
https://theintercept.com/2015/11/15/exploiting-emotions-about-paris-to-blame-snowden-distract-from-actual-culprits-who-empowered-isis/

[backscatter712]

44. Exactly. It's the same three-letter-agency creeps trotting out the same authoritarian garbage.

And now they've got Hillary making their sales pitch.

If they can't get it through this time, they'll try again with the child-molester angle.

But no matter what, both terrorists and child molesters are going to be able to get strong encryption, even if it's illegal, so the only thing that mandatory backdoors will do is make regular folks less secure and make our society more Orwellian.

[Scootaloo]

49. Up is down, red is blue, north is south...

[JonLeibowitz]

52. .

^B^L^U^E ^I^S ^R^E^D.

[leftofcool]

53. Did you notice all the poutrage down thread?

Hell, we know some script kiddies who can get around encryption.

[sibelian]

73. What are you whining about this time?

Maybe you need a break.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

78. No. No, you don't know any script kiddies who can break good encryption.

I note that you said "get around" encryption. That is possible, but of course, it has nothing to do with encryption, and everything to do with exploiting a different attack vector.

[Loudestlib]

62. apologist

[CoffeeCat]

65. Are you for real?

Seriously.

Like Bush's "Clean Skies Initiative" made the skies clean?

What a sad world when we have a Democratic candidate like Hillary who will be a proponent of disallowing encryption. Even more disappointing that we have people apologizing for this.

Our party used to collectively understand that the Republicans were wrong to use terrorism to erode our privacy.

We were all in agreement. Caroline Kennedy wrote a book about this and championed the cause of privacy erosion in this country.

What happened?

[sibelian]

74. Bollocks.

Do you think people can't read?

[jeff47]

86. Back doors mean you are not protecting privacy.

Last edited Sat Nov 21, 2015, 09:14 PM - Edit history (1)

There is nothing keeping others from using that back door. Just like there's nothing preventing people from using zero-day exploits.

[Fairgo]

97. She likes the back door

It makes her feel safe knowing that Big Sister is watching.

[sabrina 1]

90. Lol, doing the opposite of protecting privacy is what she's doing. But some people are okay with

giving up their rights. Thankfully a majority of us are not willing to give up a single right to just remain 'secure' because that would be like living in a dictatorship rather than a democracy.

I'm with Benjamin Franklin on this. Those willing to give up their rights for security deserve neither. Or words to that effect.

[AgingAmerican]

91. "Protecting Privacy" by spying on us through our phones/tablets etc?

Her supporters have gone full Monte right wing.

[AgingAmerican]

92. "Protecting Privacy"

By breaking into peoples communication devices and looking at their private information.

[Warren DeMontague]

93. Demanding government have unlimited access to everyone's shit is not "protecting privacy"

News flash- the last time we were sold a bill of goods about how necessary it was to "give goverment the proper tools to fight terrorists", not only did the NSA start spying on everybody without a warrant, they then fed that data to the DEA si that they could arrest people for things like smoking weed.

[Rockyj]

110. Hillary is notorious for stating anything to sooth the Progressive BASE

which we all know she doesn't give a SHIT about!

[cui bono]

112. How is what Hillary wants protecting privacy and security? n/t

[FlatBaroque]

3. I am glad she is doing this now, before the first primary vote is cast

gives voters a clear choice between a traditional Democrat and a Turd Way Republicrat

[TM99]

12. The progressive facade is fading

and the neoliberal she has always been is re-emerging for all to see.

[Fuddnik]

29. I've never thought of her as a Progressive or a Liberal.

I've always referred to her as "Bush in a skirt". And she's done everything to fortify that notion. IWR, Flag Burning Amendment, Bankruptcy bill (yeah, I know she was for it before she was indifferent about it).

The facade was just a cheap coat of paint.

[cui bono]

113. Except she wears pantsuits.

Seriously, I don't know why you have to use that "Bush in a skirt"description. It's pretty sexist imo. Why don't you just say she's like Bush? Or she's Bush with a 'D'?

I do agree that she is not at all a progressive nor a liberal.

[pinebox]

40. I've said all along she is NO progressive!

And this only reinforces my reassertion!

[TM99]

41. Agreed.

I knew it when she and Bill were Governor & first lady of Arkansas.

A leopard can not change its spots.

I don't know what is worse. That so many fall for the facade, or that so many just don't care if she is not a progressive.

[arcane1]

101. Resorting to "fear terrorists while I protect you" can't happen soon enough.

It will surely work on many, but many more will see it as the exploitation it is.

[freedom fighter jh]

82. Me too.

[Warren Stupidity]

4. Clinton supporters on DU will now all be in favor

of increased government surveillance and access tampering.

[backscatter712]

6. Maybe Prosense will make an appearance again.

Hell, if Clinton came out in favor of eating babies, her supporters here would be lauding the tenderness of the different cuts of baby meat and telling us "Don't knock it if you haven't tried it!"

[Warren Stupidity]

7. And some disinformant would splain

that baby eating protects babies from terrorist attacks by subsuming them into protective adult bodies. Why are you against making babies safe from terrorists?

[bahrbearian]

9. What makes you think she hasn't already posted in this thread?

[backscatter712]

10. Very true, she may have had a firmware upgrade. n/t

[JTFrog]

13. The fact that I can read. n/t

[Fairgo]

99. My thoughts exactly

[Dem2]

23. Dehumanizing your opponents

[SwampG8r]

77. I don't think prosense will be back until after the primaries

She had a true revulsion to Hillary and I think she left so she wouldn't be a target of those who supported her (prosense) here
Most of her ardent supporters here are Clinton backers and they would have turned on her like rabid wolverines.
As for me I miss her
We went around the mulberry bush a few times but she could hold her own in discussions and unlike others she could link to back herself up.
I look forward.to her return for her insights into policy.

[bvf]

8. That reads equally well

as a prediction or an edict from HQ.

Correct either way.

[ucrdem]

14. Wait, weren't you demanding an "intelligence response" to ISIS just last week?

Why yes you were:

So my thoughts is that we need more human intelligence. Time to put the CIA to work, along with France's intel agencies, and Russia's. Plant some moles in the Islamist networks. Track down the leaders and power-mongers. And put some polonium in their tea.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7343115

What a difference a week makes eh?

[hootinholler]

16. Human Intelligence doees not mean

Break encryption for everyone.

It's a shame that technology is complex and nuanced, especially making shit secure. A back door for one is a back door for all once it's discovered.

[ucrdem]

21. Intel pretty much means communication intercepts

and I'd rather they did it legally, under congressionally-approved leadership, than the utterly unlawful Bush-Cheney way.

[hootinholler]

26. Human Intel specifically means an agent gathering intel

It's the old school methods.

[ucrdem]

34. Sure on Masterpiece Theater

but times have changed eh?

[hootinholler]

36. Apparently you don't know the difference between a detective and a spy

Here's a primer.

[ucrdem]

37. Yes I'm behind on my Sunday evening viewing. nt

[DisgustipatedinCA]

79. I don't believe you're current on the definition of human intelligence.

[Fuddnik]

43. Translation:

It's the end of the world when Republicans do it.

Buy, it's a godsend when "Democrats" do it.

[ucrdem]

67. Would Snowden et al. still be breathing under Bush/Cheney?

Doubtful. Legality, accountability, due process, congressional approval and oversight -- yes, these are important, and they didn't exist before 2009.

[Laser102]

45. This is the only way to stop future terrorist attacks from happening. As for privacy concerns,

I believe we eliminated those rights under Bush and gang.

[GoneOffShore]

80. Then we should be supporting those who aren't committed to further undermining privacy.

Certainly not someone who wants us all to fall in line under the banner of "If you're not doing anything wrong, then you've got nothing to hide".

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/11/20/clinton_silicon_valley/

[Warren DeMontague]

95. As distinguished from a "stupid, knee-jerk response"

Namely, using Paris as an excuse to give cops carte blanche to spy on people's phones without warrants.

[EndElectoral]

15. Typical response by her. Wanting to have it both ways, but leaning on the side of intrusion.

[longship]

17. She should pass this by the banks whose lifelines depend on secure communication.

And no, I will not comment on her financial supporters here.

But the back door scam has been advocated before. No rational person would support such a thing. I am shocked that Secy Clinton is not aware of it.

If there is a back door, that means that there is a back door to exploit. No sane security expert would support such a thing. Maybe Secy Clinton should ask the banks about that.

I am not against any Dem candidate, but she is dead wrong on this.

[99Forever]

85. Insanity:

Doing the same actions that have led to negative results repeatedly, over again thinking that the results will be positive this time.

Rational isn't in her wheelhouse.

[BootinUp]

18. You take what is a balanced call for experts to examine the issue

and exaggerate it way out of proportion. Congrats on that. But it says more about your fears than Hillary's judgement.

[Cheese Sandwich]

19. It's a simple question. Should the government have a master key to look in everyone's phone?

[backscatter712]

22. A very good question.

Or to put it in the physical sense, should the government require all homeowners to set up their door locks so the government can open them with a skeleton key and snoop around whenever they want? As the NSA news for the past couple years has shown, they're soooooooo trustworthy...

And how do you keep the skeleton key secure? The cryptography and security experts say it cannot be done.

[BootinUp]

28. The Democratic party has historically protected privacy with judicial restraints

and Hillary is not suggesting anything different in this speech.


*Edited to replace "due process restraints" with judicial.

[backscatter712]

60. After seeing what Snowden revealed about the NSA, that's not good enough.

The folks in Fort Meade think due process and judicial restraint is a joke.

[BootinUp]

68. I just don't see a majority in the US taking your viewpoint

and I don't take it either. You are basically implying that government overreach in the past means that we cannot govern ourselves. That is a pretty negative viewpoint (probably an understatement). Liberals are not afraid to talk about issues and try to make things better, and Hillary's speech is entirely in that spirit.

[Fuddnik]

35. And, as Glenn Greenwald said on Democracy Now! a few days ago,

There's not one iota of evidence that the Paris terrorists used encryption at all.

The terrorists, and other assorted enemies already know that we tap their phones, and try to intercept their communications. This is all directed at American citizens. To make it easier for them to spy on US.

[randome]

50. Yes. They should. And they should be able to use that key only under court order.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Birds are territorial creatures.
The lyrics to the songbird's melodious trill go something like this:
"Stay out of my territory or I'll PECK YOUR GODDAMNED EYES OUT!"[/center][/font][hr]

[jeff47]

87. And when others work out that key?

It is not possible to keep a "backdoor" secure. It will be discovered by people outside the US government.

The call for a "backdoor" is a call to end all encryption, because everyone will use that backdoor.

[randome]

105. So we just ignore child pornographers and organized crime and hope they go away?

Most communications are not secure now and the world is not falling apart. Well, some might disagree with that but I don't think it's falling apart because of the lack of unbreakable encryption, is it?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

[jeff47]

106. No, we stop pretending they'd be stupid enough to not use proper encryption.

Most communications are not secure now and the world is not falling apart.

My SSN has been stolen 5 times in the last 3 years. That I know about. Thanks to that, I get to pay to prevent people from using it for credit. I have no idea who's using it for other purposes. Such as a fake passport that those evildoers you are so worried about might use.

So no, the current state of affairs is not good.

Well, some might disagree with that but I don't think it's falling apart because of the lack of unbreakable encryption, is it?

We already have "unbreakable" encryption (Assuming you mean no-backdoor encryption). The proposal is to replace that with encryption that has a backdoor.

The people who really want to protect their communications or data will still be able to use no-backdoor encryption. It's all the rest of us that get screwed by this proposal.

[randome]

107. Not everyone uses an iPhone. Apple is the only company offering full-proof encryption, right?

[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

[jeff47]

108. No. Android has had it for years. (nt)

[sibelian]

75. "Balanced" "Experts" my arse.

We already know how this argument works, this conversation is a waste of time.

[backscatter712]

84. You want an expert, I'll give you an expert.

https://www.schneier.com/paper-keys-under-doormats.html

Bruce Schneier is one of the most respected experts in cryptography and computer security, and his professional opinion is that mandatory law-enforcement/intelligence backdoors make our devices incredibly insecure.

It comes down to the math. You cannot create a backdoor that is only usable by the Good Guys. It's impossible.

[ruffburr]

20. Hillary-

Is now tacking to right , She changes positions faster than she changes her pant suits, So how can anyone in their right mind believe that she is the best choice for President of the United States, She is nothing less than a Corporate shill Third Way Democrat.

[backscatter712]

24. Yep, she thinks she's won it, so she's kissing up to her powerful fuckbuddies now. n/t

[CoffeeCat]

71. I'm still trying to ascertain what she is doing...

...but it appears that she has totally given up on the Progressives base of her own party.

Her neocon stances--and now her 'We must give up privacy because...terrorism' tripe only appeals to the crazies on the right. Independents and moderates don't feel this way. Libertarians don't agree either.

I think she's, in effect, said, "Screw you!" to the Sanders supporters. She knows that they can't stand her. I actually think this makes sense. There's no point in trying to win over a group of people who clearly want to vote for a liberal--and strongly dislike her. It makes sense to stop fighting a battle that you're never going to win.

I'm a bit baffled, because this series of newly announced neocon, pro-war, anti-privacy stances and speeches are not at all "moderate".

She's gone full Rumsfeld! If she thinks that will appeal to undecideds/moderates/Independents--well, that's laughable.

I'd love to know the backstory on this. Obviously, it's a very deliberate, concerted part of her campaign strategy. Who is advising her and what is she doing?

[Betty Karlson]

25. Clinton ignores the direst of warnings:

This will reverberate in decreased sales of American electronic devices. Consumer confidence (outside of the U.S.A.) in American products could plummet over this kind of government interference.

[ruffburr]

27. Do you worry about profits much-

I would say there are much more important implications in this.

[Betty Karlson]

31. There are indeed.

Although a structural recession in Silicon Valley is a dire thing indeed. Best avoid it when S.V. specifically warns this encryption could trigger one.

[pengu]

30. I'll remember this when I hear 'Supreme Court'

Nobody supporting these Orwellian powers ought to be appointing people for life to the highest court.

[Betty Karlson]

32. Good point. eom

[stillwaiting]

48. My God this is such a good point. nt

[SoapBox]

33. Ugh...she's the worst.

This, is what the Democratic Party has become...at least the HRC/DWS wing.

I repeat...ugh.

[pinebox]

38. GTFO Hillary! NOW!

You and the Government has NO business in my personal shit and you can take that and shove it!
This needs to be an issue & in the limelight because it will make millennials show up at the polls.
Hillary supporters are actually defending this? Seriously?

So far we've got her supporters defending fracking, a non living wage, no single payer, The Patriot Act, her past stances & things like KXL, DADT, DOMA, TPP and now we have this.

WTF where am I?

[cantbeserious]

46. The Supposed Progressive - Flops - Now Supports Electronic Tyranny - This Citizen Is Not Surprised

eom

[mindwalker_i]

47. This is a perfect illustration of what Hillary is

I seriously doubt she cares about encryption, but in the wake of Paris, people are freaking out again, and Hillary is trying to tap into that fear by showing people she will protect them. Like Bush, it's, "by any means necessary," regardless of the legal implications or how damaging it will be long-term to society. And just like with Bush, we'll end up with things that hurt us - back doors to encryption will make us a lot more vulnerable to hackers, plus erode further our privacy from government.

What;'s this all for? To get votes. There are real problems in this country like income inequality and all the effects of that, and we seriously need leaders who actually give a fuck about those problems and want to solve them. Hillary just wants to be prez.

[SleeplessinSoCal]

51. who honestly didn't think the new iPhone security

promises would be abused by the criminal element terrorist organizations?

[randome]

56. Or by any number of 'run-of-the-mill' criminal enterprises.

I know some think that throwing out the words 'child pornographers' is an attempt to supersede the discussion but it's a valid point to consider, IMO. Not to mention organized crime will be able to be that much more organized if they don't fear the authorities.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Birds are territorial creatures.
The lyrics to the songbird's melodious trill go something like this:
"Stay out of my territory or I'll PECK YOUR GODDAMNED EYES OUT!"[/center][/font][hr]

[Cosmic Kitten]

66. *fear the authorities*

Sounds suspiciously AUTHORITARIAN.

Here comes Godwin's Law...
Fear the AUTHORITIES!!!

[randome]

104. Right. Because child pornographers and organized crime don't exist except in our imaginations.

And what that has to do with Hitler is...never mind, it has nothing to do with Hitler.

Long live the Libertarian Way!
[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

[BootinUp]

72. Agreed. nt

[Warren DeMontague]

100. the NSA used its post 9-11 surveillance blank check to help the DEA target drug users.

There's your "criminal enterpise" that they want to be able to get with this shit. Granny growing skunk weed in her basement for her chemo nausea.

http://www.salon.com/2013/08/10/the_nsa_dea_police_state_tango/

[randome]

103. There is nothing in that article that suggests small-town pot users were targeted.

Other than the writer of the article making that inference on his own.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

[Warren DeMontague]

109. Right. The drug war has no excesses, and only big bad drug cartels are targeted.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/30/justice/california-dea-settlement/

http://extract.suntimes.com/news/10/153/4054/ricardo-varona-florida-man-faces-35-years-behind-bars-growing-cannabis-wifes-cancer

[jeff47]

88. It is not possible to create a backdoor that only the "good guys" can use.

As a result, creating a backdoor is effectively ending encryption for everyone.

[Warren DeMontague]

98. Yes, it's maddening when cops set up a stingray the parking lot of a Phish show to bust pot smokers

And they find that Wookie q. Wookerton that they just sent the swat team in to arrest for sparking a bowl, has encrypted his phone.

Damn you, criminal terrorist organizations!

[AzDar]

54. Welp, I am glad her 'slip is hanging' as my Gram used to say...However, I cannot believe

that any Progressives support her...

[CharlotteVale]

55. Was there any question that she would?

[Ed Suspicious]

57. So much better than a Republican because she will

be able to push through Republican policy with comparatively little resistance.

[OnyxCollie]

58. DEVELOPMENT OF SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGY AND RISK OF ABUSE OF ECONOMIC INFORMATION

SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNOLOGICAL OPTIONS ASSESSMENT
STOA

DEVELOPMENT OF SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGY AND RISK OF ABUSE OF ECONOMIC INFORMATION

Vol 5/5
The perception of economic risks arising from the potential vulnerability of electronic commercial media to interception

Working document for the STOA Panel

Luxembourg, October 1999 PE 168.184/Vol 5/5

From 1994 onwards, Washington began to woo private companies to develop an encryption system that would provide access to keys by government agencies. Under the proposals - variously known as `key escrow', `key recovery' or `trusted third parties' - the keys would be held by a corporation, not a government agency, and would be designed by the private sector, not the NSA. The systems, however, still entailed the assumption of guaranteed access to the intelligence community and so proved as controversial as the Clipper Chip. The government used export incentives to encourage companies to adopt key escrow products: they could export stronger encryption, but only if they ensured that intelligence agencies had access to the keys.

Under US law, computer software and hardware cannot be exported if it contains encryption that the NSA cannot break. The regulations stymie the availability of encryption in the USA because companies are reluctant to develop two separate product lines - one, with strong encryption, for domestic use and another, with weak encryption, for the international market. Several cases are pending in the US courts on the constitutionality of export controls; a federal court recently ruled that they violate free speech rights under the First Amendment.

The FBI has not let up on efforts to ban products on which it cannot eavesdrop. In mid- 1997, it introduced legislation to mandate that key-recovery systems be built into all computer systems. The amendment was adopted by several congressional Committees but the Senate preferred a weaker variant. A concerted campaign by computer, telephone and privacy groups finally stopped the proposal; it now appears that no legislation will be enacted in the current Congress.

While the key escrow approach was being pushed in the USA, Washington had approached foreign organisations and states. The lynchpin for the campaign was David Aaron, US ambassador to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), who visited dozens of countries in what one analyst derided as a programme of `laundering failed US policy through international bodies to give it greater acceptance'.

[fbc]

59. Using a crisis to go full authoritarian - She is really bad.

Her only possible excuse is that she understands nothing about technology and encryption, and if that's the case she should keep her mouth shut about it and stop parroting law enforcement talking points.

[backscatter712]

61. She's had plenty of opportunities to learn (the hard way) as the email snafu has demonstrated... n/t

[fbc]

63. "Wipe a hard drive? Like with a cloth?"

This is the person that is going to explain encryption to us now?

[Warren DeMontague]

96. That was "befuddled grandma" Hillary, "gosh golly i just have an aol.com email address" Hillary

"Gee whiz i have no idea what you're talking about when you mention the server in my basement" Hillary

You fail to understand that here, by contrast, we are seeing "National Security" Hillary, "Smoke em out" Hillary, and "I'm going to use this terror attack as an excuse to try and hand the NSA/FBI/DEA something big on their Christmas list" Hillary

[Cosmic Kitten]

64. But she doesn't know what *Wipe* a computer mean???

Effffff that!

Hillary runs her own private email server
because, privacy incompetence, whatever...

yet everyone else should be spyed on?

Effing hypocrite.

Oligarchs gonna oligarch

[MaggieD]

69. From the link

"“We should take the concerns of law enforcement and counterterrorism professionals seriously,” she said. “On the other hand we know there are legitimate concerns about government intrusion, network security and creating new vulnerabilities that bad actors can and would exploit.”

“Now is the time to solve this problem, not after the next attack,” she urged."

She's right again. I wonder if she ever tires of being the only adult running.

[backscatter712]

76. She's not listening to the computer security experts.

Maybe if she read a few articles like this...

https://www.schneier.com/paper-keys-under-doormats.html

https://www.schneier.com/paper-keys-under-doormats.pdf

Keys Under Doormats:
Mandating Insecurity by Requiring Government Access to All Data and Communications

Abstract:
Twenty years ago, law enforcement organizations lobbied to require data and communication services to engineer their products to guarantee law enforcement access to all data. After lengthy debate and vigorous predictions of enforcement channels going dark, these attempts to regulate the emerging Internet were abandoned. In the intervening years, innovation on the Internet flourished, and law enforcement agencies found new and more effective means of accessing vastly larger quantities of data. Today we are again hearing calls for regulation to mandate the provision of exceptional access mechanisms. In this report, a group of computer scientists and security experts, many of whom participated in a 1997 study of these same topics, has convened to explore the likely effects of imposing extraordinary access mandates.

We have found that the damage that could be caused by law enforcement exceptional access requirements would be even greater today than it would have been 20 years ago. In the wake of the growing economic and social cost of the fundamental insecurity of today's Internet environment, any proposals that alter the security dynamics online should be approached with caution. Exceptional access would force Internet system developers to reverse forward secrecy design practices that seek to minimize the impact on user privacy when systems are breached. The complexity of today's Internet environment, with millions of apps and globally connected services, means that new law enforcement requirements are likely to introduce unanticipated, hard to detect security flaws. Beyond these and other technical vulnerabilities, the prospect of globally deployed exceptional access systems raises difficult problems about how such an environment would be governed and how to ensure that such systems would respect human rights and the rule of law.

All she's doing is trying the same tired old triangulating. Except on this issue, triangulating doesn't work. You either have proper security using strong cryptography, or you have your pants down for hackers and three-letter-agencies that aren't respecting the Fourth Amendment. There is no "only the good guys can use it" backdoor.

[jeff47]

89. It is not possible to create a backdoor that only "the good guys" can use.

That backdoor is usable by anyone.

Meanwhile, "the bad guys" can still use encryption that does not include a backdoor. It's really not that hard.

This is not "solving" this problem. This is demonstrating she does not understand the problem at all.

[davidn3600]

70. Any IT person who votes for Hillary is a fool

First, she supports expanding H1B visas which is being used by systematically by corporations to import cheap labor and bring down wages in STEM jobs.

Second, she supports wanting a back door in our technology so the government can invade our privacy. That's not only bad because it lets big brother in our lives, but it's bad because any backdoor will CERTAINLY be exploited by hackers. So you are basically compromising security, giving up freedom, all in the name of security. It makes no sense.

Like the old saying.....when you sacrifice freedom for security, you lose both.

[ibegurpard]

81. she'd vote for the Iraq War again too

Anything she thinks can net her short-term political gain. Long term consequences for the rest of us be damned.

[Vattel]

83. big surprise that she would be on the wrong side of this issue

[Warren DeMontague]

94. NSA shares surveillance data with DEA, to assist them in investigating and arresting pot smokers.

http://www.salon.com/2013/08/10/the_nsa_dea_police_state_tango/


So much for these "important tools" only being used to catch "terrorists"

[backscatter712]

102. Yep Parallel Construction.

The NSA uses their infrastructure, aka Google for Tyrants, to suss them out, then to avoid being confronted for illegal searches and illegal snooping on US citizens, they send an "anonymous tip" to other law enforcement, who just magically connect the dots and build a parallel chain of evidence to make a bust.

[OnyxCollie]

111. NSA shares surveillance data with FBI, who shares surveillance data with corrupt US Attorneys,

to assist them in investigating and arresting Democrats in areas with close elections.

Asset forfeiture is nice, but stealing elections is where the real power lies.

[backscatter712]

115. Prosecuting, or blackmailing.

I wonder what dirt the three-letter-agencies have on Hillary...

[Major Hogwash]

114. The Secret Service codename for Hillary Clinton is . . .

. . . Loose Cannon.

So much for privacy!