Re: Obama on Fetishizing Our Phones • Hacker News Board

Re: Re: Obama on Fetishizing Our Phones

#201

Post by Grishnakh » Mon, Mar 14, 2016, 1:07 AM UTC

jordanb wrote: post #86

tomlongson wrote: post #42

A key promise of Obama's campaign for the presidency was to run the “most transparent” government- however the only person to really deliver on that promise was a whistleblower. Secret courts, secret domestic spying, and now calls for weakening of the digital equivalent of the safe shows that he either was not honest about transparency, or has radically changed his opinion since becoming POTUS. Maybe it's that he dec…

I think Washington has changed Obama more than Obama changed Washington. He's spent seven years in the craziest bubble in America surrounded by people being paid millions to distort his worldview one way or another. A while back he advised some kids in College to never type anything into a computer if they want it to remain private. For him, it probably seems completely reasonable. I doubt he's touched a keyboard sin…

I'm not so sure about all this. Bernie's been in Washington for decades as a Congressman, so he's been exposed to the same stuff, and his worldview is completely different from Obama's. Before he was elected, Obama had very little experience in Washington; he didn't even serve a full Senate term, and mostly voted "present". He just told us what we wanted to hear, and didn't have much of a record backing up his rhetoric. Hillary, by contrast, has a lengthy record, but it backs up all the worst actions that Obama has shown, but worse. Bernie has an even lengthier record but unlike Hillary there's no indication of corruption and his record is pretty much all good from a liberal perspective.

Re: Re: Obama on Fetishizing Our Phones

#202

Post by MicroBerto » Mon, Mar 14, 2016, 1:08 AM UTC

hawkice wrote: post #189

MicroBerto wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The good news about Trump is that he's not bought or sold. He is what he is, which from my viewpoint is better than the unknown that we currently have.

I've read this so many times I am starting to think this makes sense to the people saying it: "Trump may be [insert whatever], and [policy X] is ridiculous, and [statement Y] went over the line. But [X] won't ever happen, so I don't have to worry about it." Don't get me wrong, using policy and public statements to judge fitness for public office isn't perfect, but it seems in this case we are substituting policy and…

You act like his entire life hasn't been "executing a complex and demanding job"? Running a small business is hard enough, I can't even imagine running an empire.

Trump has been one step ahead of every last person this entire election cycle. It's been fascinating to watch and I'm done doubting him, underestimating him, or second-guessing why he does or says anything. Now I'm simply at the point where I'm just trying to learn from it, because there are lessons for any business owner or public figure inside.

In fact, if he were to win, I'm not even convinced [X] "won't happen".

Re: Re: Obama on Fetishizing Our Phones

#203

Post by studentrob » Mon, Mar 14, 2016, 1:08 AM UTC

tudorw wrote: post #21

One strong point that comes out is reference to the transitory nature of governments, just because you trust yours now (!), does not mean you can trust future incarnations, don't give this kind of power to an unknown.

Right. We need to inform each other and our representatives how we feel about this issue, and support our argument with facts. There is a lot each of us can do. I suggest focusing on the security and economic implications of passing legislation requiring backdoors in phones. The DOJ and Obama will not listen to the privacy angle. It must be shown that on balance, we will not be more secure because criminals will just change to use technology that is encrypted, and in the mean time we will have placed our user data within reach of hackers everywhere via a government-imposed weakness that phone makers like Apple will never be allowed to fix. They'll be required by law to maintain such a weakness.

Re: Re: Obama on Fetishizing Our Phones

#204

Post by pas » Mon, Mar 14, 2016, 1:09 AM UTC

cromwellian wrote: post #131

Obama has a meta-point however that proponents of the absolutist position don't seem to want to face. Democracy relies on transparency. Many of the progressives who are rallying in support of absolute right to privacy are some of the same people who constantly criticize Swiss bank accounts, Cayman island financial shenanigans. But if companies were to implement the same sorts of impenetrable encryption, on every devi…

> cryptoanarchy and Democracy are on a collision course

Yes, though I'd like to see your argument for that.

However, the failure mode of crypto-anarchy is perfectly secret digital companies arising, who then proceed to affect the real world for digital currency. (Such as a hitman, or an army of anonymous mercenaries conducting irregular warfare for hire.) So, basically large scale terrorism.

Probably much better than the failure mode of a bit overzealous police state.

> some of the same people who constantly criticize Swiss bank accounts, Cayman island financial shenanigans.

That's their shortsightedness. There are ways to tax that don't rely on looking into people's bank accounts. And a lot of the current expenditures could be replaced by projects that require proof of payment. So, you need to show a proof of payment otherwise no school for your kids, no healthcare, no pension, you can't use public roads, etc. And people can vote to enforce collection of money, just like now, foreclosure and repossession works on physical things.

> companies

People can vote to make records keeping mandatory (just like now), and employees have it in their interest to get things in writing. Otherwise they (also) go to jail if they did something really stupid. (It was an order is not an acceptable defense for some time.)

> Will Democracy be able to audit nothing of the interactions of citizens or our institutions in the future?

As it was unable to do so before digital records. And as it is unable to do so for criminal organizations.

And since cryptography exists and computing is becoming more and more accessible, it's getting easier and easier to maintain a secret organization with a secret ledger.

So, all in all, it's a bad thing to rely on those backdoors. It's not even a stopgap measure.

Re: Re: Obama on Fetishizing Our Phones

#205

Post by bennyg » Mon, Mar 14, 2016, 1:09 AM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #191

karmelapple wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really? That seems very disrespectful to the Nobel committee to me.

No, what the Nobel committee did was disrespectful to all those that won that prize for good reasons. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Nobel_Peace_Prize Quoting "Obama said he was "surprised" and "deeply humbled" by the award. He stated that he does not feel he deserved the award,[14][15] and that he did not feel worthy of the company the award would place him in." So if that was his stance he should have refu…

Everybody says that though.

Re: Re: Obama on Fetishizing Our Phones

#206

Post by waterlesscloud » Mon, Mar 14, 2016, 1:10 AM UTC

willholloway wrote: post #165

jordanb wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think Washington has changed Obama more than Obama changed Washington. He's spent seven years in the craziest bubble in America surrounded by people being paid millions to distort his worldview one way or another. A while back he advised some kids in College to never type anything into a computer if they want it to remain private. For him, it probably seems completely reasonable. I doubt he's touched a keyboard sin…

Let's take a moment of deep appreciation for President Obama's decision to not panic after the San Bernadino shooting, reinstate color terror alert codes, spark a ground invasion of Syria, or in any other way overreact. For a brief interlude in American history, we had a president that didn't capitalize on terror attacks politically, or generally set a tone of paranoia and fear. We won't always be this lucky.

This recent debate has quite literally centered on his administration using the San Bernardino shootings as leverage to force Apple to break iPhone's encryption. It's the main reason this whole discussion has the profile level it does.

Re: Re: Obama on Fetishizing Our Phones

#207

Post by spoiledtechie » Mon, Mar 14, 2016, 1:16 AM UTC

willholloway wrote: post #165

jordanb wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think Washington has changed Obama more than Obama changed Washington. He's spent seven years in the craziest bubble in America surrounded by people being paid millions to distort his worldview one way or another. A while back he advised some kids in College to never type anything into a computer if they want it to remain private. For him, it probably seems completely reasonable. I doubt he's touched a keyboard sin…

Let's take a moment of deep appreciation for President Obama's decision to not panic after the San Bernadino shooting, reinstate color terror alert codes, spark a ground invasion of Syria, or in any other way overreact. For a brief interlude in American history, we had a president that didn't capitalize on terror attacks politically, or generally set a tone of paranoia and fear. We won't always be this lucky.

Red line in Syria anyone? Crimea anyone? Lybia and Benghazi? I call bull shittt on your appreciation.

Re: Re: Obama on Fetishizing Our Phones

#208

Post by jacquesm » Mon, Mar 14, 2016, 1:17 AM UTC

bennyg wrote: post #205

jacquesm wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, what the Nobel committee did was disrespectful to all those that won that prize for good reasons. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Nobel_Peace_Prize Quoting "Obama said he was "surprised" and "deeply humbled" by the award. He stated that he does not feel he deserved the award,[14][15] and that he did not feel worthy of the company the award would place him in." So if that was his stance he should have refu…

Everybody says that though.

But usually I don't agree with it, in Obama's case I do.

It's not as if he brought lasting peace to some place that's been on fire for the last 3 decades, besides the prize was awarded way too early in his first term for him to have time enough to accomplish such a thing in the first place (after only 9 months).

My personal view on this is that he mostly received it because he wasn't Bush and they were trying to shame him into doing the right thing (which may have had a point) but I don't think that worked out too well.

Re: Re: Obama on Fetishizing Our Phones

#209

Post by spoiledtechie » Mon, Mar 14, 2016, 1:17 AM UTC

tomlongson wrote: post #42

A key promise of Obama's campaign for the presidency was to run the “most transparent” government- however the only person to really deliver on that promise was a whistleblower. Secret courts, secret domestic spying, and now calls for weakening of the digital equivalent of the safe shows that he either was not honest about transparency, or has radically changed his opinion since becoming POTUS. Maybe it's that he dec…

I'm soo very surprised after all this, you still hold him such high esteem. When he was and is exactly like every other politician.

Re: Re: Obama on Fetishizing Our Phones

#210

Post by Grishnakh » Mon, Mar 14, 2016, 1:18 AM UTC

cromwellian wrote: post #154

mattmanser wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They can still plant bugs in offices, cars, homes, etc. That's specific and targeted and proportional, but expensive and hard. There's no good reason they have to have access to electronic devices, they can install cameras and mics. It's just easier going straight to the phones and emails. But they had that power and they abused it massively, and are now suffering the backlash, and why should privacy stop given they'…

So you're in favor of the government bugging and installing cameras secretly? Because you can't really bug say, Enron's corporate office without a warrant served, and so they'd know they're being watched. The alternative is breaking and entering. So since retroactive paper trails will be devalued, the government will have to switch to preemptive collection and entrapment scenarios. I'm not sure this is better for pri…

This sounds like a bunch of crap (re: the warrant for Enron's corporate office). I admit I'm not aware of exactly what the legalities are right now, but for the sake of argument, I don't see why the government shouldn't be able to secretly bug a corporate office, provided that a proper warrant is in place. So yeah, if they get a warrant to do so and convince a judge that this is necessary, they should be able to get some government spy to be able to sneak in somehow (maintenance worker?) and plant bugs.

The whole key here is having a warrant, a specific warrant for a specific target looking for specific things. I don't think most Americans have a problem with law enforcement being able to snoop on people of suspicion provided the proper channels are followed, only particular persons of interest are snooped on, and it isn't just a fishing expedition. This is exactly why we have warrants: so that law enforcement can gather evidence of crimes and prosecute people, but without overly infringing on the civil liberties of the people.

So no, it wouldn't be "breaking and entering" if you have the correct warrant in place, just like it isn't "breaking and entering" when the police have a warrant to enter your house looking for evidence and they enter when you aren't home.