91–100 of 196 posts
Is it really worth leaving a thoughtful comment about such an ignorant statement? It's clear to me that these people have no idea what encryption actually is and only have a cursory understanding of what it does. They're aware that criminals and terrorists can use encryption to communicate covertly. That's why they want to ban it. Are they also aware that the exact same technology is used to protect their online bank…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Republicans" Rand Paul is pretty openly pro-encryption. Hillary Clinton is equivocating; I think she's probably anti-encryption. These may be exceptions that prove the rule but I think what we're really seeing is a combination of ignorance, pandering and authoritarianism across the spectrum.
Hillay clinton is probably pro-hide-that-hardisk. Rand Paul is libertarian and mostly anti-gov. We need more people like him in Washington.
I would no sooner put a anti-gov politician in charge than hire a manager who's opposed to the existence of the team he's managing.
I swear the media has a bias too. So many articles are bashing encryption lately. I wish I could do more to fight misinformation and general ignorance than posting on my Facebook though. Ideas?
On the other hand, some media companies are also ISPs now (Comcast, TWC). They don't really have destination sites collecting your general behavior, but they have something better - all your traffic in transit. Shame it's encrypted.
I love how Republicans believe that outlawing guns won't stop criminals from having guns while at the same time believing that outlawing encryption will keep criminals from using encryption. Encryption methods are far easier to transport and spread illegally than gun are.
"Republicans" Rand Paul is pretty openly pro-encryption. Hillary Clinton is equivocating; I think she's probably anti-encryption. These may be exceptions that prove the rule but I think what we're really seeing is a combination of ignorance, pandering and authoritarianism across the spectrum.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think Congress needs their own dedicated ELI5 hotline :)
They have one - their favorite lobbyist. Who is probably paid to explain things in a way that suits the agenda of someone with money.
Is it really worth leaving a thoughtful comment about such an ignorant statement? It's clear to me that these people have no idea what encryption actually is and only have a cursory understanding of what it does. They're aware that criminals and terrorists can use encryption to communicate covertly. That's why they want to ban it. Are they also aware that the exact same technology is used to protect their online bank…
> Are they also aware that the exact same technology is used to protect their online banking? To protect against attacks like the Sony hack? Do they know that there is a huge segment of the economy that relies on strong encryption to do business? I'm sure they are. The problem is, I suspect, more the delusion that if there are backdoors, only MURICA will be able to exploit them because GODDAMN GREATEST COUNTRY IN THE…
So now Washington is suffering from a similar delusion: you can build encryption to keep criminals out of your banking website, but still allow the feds access to whatever they choose.