Re: Obama on Fetishizing Our Phones • Hacker News Board

Re: Re: Obama on Fetishizing Our Phones

#321

Post by studentrob » Mon, Mar 14, 2016, 7:16 PM UTC

Grishnakh wrote: post #303

studentrob wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Note that Bernie and Hillary have both said they believe middle ground can be sought on this issue. As strange as it may sound, the Clintons did the most for the pro-encryption side of this debate. Former President Clinton passed CALEA, which TechDirt points out applies to "manufacturers and providers of telecommunications support services" [1]. Also from CALEA, > (1) Design of features and systems configurations. Th…

>As strange as it may sound, the Clintons did the most for the pro-encryption side of this debate. Former President Clinton passed CALEA Huh? You must be too young to remember the Clinton presidency, but Clinton's administration made a huge push to force everyone to use the "Clipper" chip for encryption, which would have both mandated a specific type of (not-so-strong) encryption and given the government the keys for…

Ug, did you read the sources I posted?

I didn't say the Clintons were pro-encryption. I said, "Oddly enough, they did the most for this side of the debate".

Maybe that's inaccurate, in that they probably weren't responsible for the exact language that comes to Apple's rescue in CALEA, however Clinton did sign it.

Anyway, my point was, in a thread about the iPhone case, in response to a comment with a user praising Bernie Sanders, that Bernie has not said anything different about encryption than Obama or Clinton, and that's it. That's my whole point. I am not making this political, I'm just sharing facts. Of course we know Hillary won't do jack to protect strong encryption. I don't think Sanders will support it either, based on what he's said so far.

Re: Re: Obama on Fetishizing Our Phones

#322

Post by schoen » Mon, Mar 14, 2016, 7:17 PM UTC

ross-life wrote: post #292

schoen wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The existence of the FISA Court has never been a secret. It was created by FISA in 1978 and is right there in the text of the statute. Even the members of the FISA Court are publicly disclosed (they're all existing Federal judges who are appointed to temporary terms). What is secret about the FISA Court is its decisions , not its existence (and that should change slightly as a result of the USA Freedom Act's requirem…

As a European that still effectively screams "secret court" to me, just with some word games around it. Part of the problem is the US also broadly applies "Top Secret" to too much information, even the mundane, so then it "has to go to the secret court because it's "Top Secret".

Oh, I'm happy with the description of the FISA Court as a "secret court"; I just wanted to answer the misconception that this means people didn't know that the court existed.

Interestingly, regular courts can and do hear cases involving classified information.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classified_Information_Procedu...

It's not that cases involving classified information somehow get transferred to the FISA Court; instead, the FISA Court only hears cases involving surveillance requests arising under FISA.

Re: Re: Obama on Fetishizing Our Phones

#323

Post by graycat » Mon, Mar 14, 2016, 7:22 PM UTC

nkurz wrote: post #319

graycat wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To me Obama is a subject I wish I'd never heard about. I don't want to know about Obama. But I am a US citizen and, thus, basically need to try to understand him. To understand him is, as usual for people, not an exact science, but I have to try. My first conclusion is that no way before he leaves office will he really say what or who he is. Not a chance. So, instead, he is putting on an act, much more than nearly an…

I appreciate the genuine response, although your explanations for events seem bizarre to me. I find them parallel to another current front-page article on mental illness: I had tried to fill the gaps with guesses. But when my guesses were wrong, conspiracy theories crawled in. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/13/opinion/sunday/the-neurosc... For me, the explanation that politicians are fallible humans is mostly suffici…

Yup, sometimes something that goes bump in the night is dangerous and sometimes it is not. And sometimes we can guess that we heard something that went bump in the night but nothing did.

There are some bad things out there. We need to try to detect them. That sometimes we guess wrong doesn't mean we shouldn't try. But before we draw big conclusions and take important action, we need to be very careful -- measure at least twice and saw just once and because we may not get to saw twice.

Re: Re: Obama on Fetishizing Our Phones

#324

Post by coldtea » Mon, Mar 14, 2016, 9:30 PM UTC

yohui wrote: post #266

cromwellian wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"People determined to communicate without anyone hearing, e.g. to setup their tax-haven accouts-- can do it in 2000 ways." That's pretty much the argument made against any gun regulation, because pretty much anyone who wants to commit a gun crime can find a workaround. "including checking suspected bank transactions with a warrant" Assuming one is not using cryptocurrency like bitcoin to store money and make transact…

I thought it was interesting that someone in a previous thread pointed out the parallels between encryption and firearm regulation. They presented it as a point in favor of gun ownership, but it made me take a step back and look at it the other way. My opinions haven't changed, but I'm a little more wary of the rhetoric being thrown around.

>I thought it was interesting that someone in a previous thread pointed out the parallels between encryption and firearm regulation. They presented it as a point in favor of gun ownership, but it made me take a step back and look at it the other way.

Instead of reading it as something negative about encryption, you can think it as a positive.

In the sense, that the argument shows that encryption has all the "freedom", "individual rights" etc benefits touted for gun ownership, but without the bloodshed that is associated with guns.

Re: Re: Obama on Fetishizing Our Phones

#325

Post by coldtea » Mon, Mar 14, 2016, 9:31 PM UTC

graycat wrote: post #280

coldtea wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually all of these sound like excellent gestures. Not playing to BS patriotism and phony sentiment by having his hands "together and below his belt"? Daring to say "my muslim faith" (haven't heard of that, so I kinda doubt it, but still). Bowing in respect to heads of other nations, instead of playing the "greatest nation on earth"? All of these all excellent. It's all the OTHER stuff that's bad about what he did.

Nearly universally in the US, hand over heart during the playing of the US National Anthem is a biggie. A lot of highly patriotic US citizens could get all wound up about that. Each of Hillary and Richardson put their hand over their heart. It's a free country, so you are welcome to your opinion, but what Obama did would be telling to a huge fraction of US citizens and, thus, some telling background for someone askin…

Maybe those "huge fractions of US citizens" for which these things are "biggies" are part of what's wrong with the country.

Re: Re: Obama on Fetishizing Our Phones

#326

Post by MicroBerto » Tue, Mar 15, 2016, 4:04 AM UTC

mikeash wrote: post #318

MicroBerto wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find this line laughable. Everyone seems to think that turning a million into billions is a cakewalk. Most people wouldn't even know where to begin and would lose their minds during any downturn. The others would buy a small house and whither away savings. The rest would waste it all on idiocy. If you're running a billion dollar empire and it hasn't burnt to the ground, you can be sure that he's hired good people.…

Trump inherited tens of millions. Other people have done the "market simulator" thing and the result is that Trump has not outperformed the market. My shell script would have done about as well at growing Trump's wealth as Trump did. Turning tens of millions into a few billions over the past forty years is a cakewalk. I don't know why you think it's "laughable" to say this. It doesn't even require smart investing, ju…

Yep, it's clearly that easy when you can look backwards at it. You have a time machine too?

You and I both know that you would have shit your emotional bricks in every downturn... while these guys are all buying more. And if not that error, then you likely would have generated some other failure.

If you're so good, you'd have that shell script up and running by now. Use that 20/20 hindsight to go do it in the future and see how that goes. Go turn $1000 into $1,000,000. It's easy, isn't it? Everyone can do it!

Nope. Instead, you haven't answered my question because, I am now convinced, you have absolutely no clue how difficult it is to grow such a large business, albeit a small one.

But of course you won't answer - you've never walked the mile. Yet there you are, on your high horse driving from the backseat on Hacker News with talk of shell scripts and 20/20 hindsight whiling failing to see another person's accomplishments - that is the sin.

Disagree with Trump's political policies, fine. I honestly don't care. But to make business success sound so easy - especially in this forum where there are tons of people who have received generous amounts of capital and squandered it all - is to insult any successful businessperson out there.

Just try and say that he's "lucky". Be that person -- the worst kind -- and be done with it.

Re: Re: Obama on Fetishizing Our Phones

#327

Post by MicroBerto » Tue, Mar 15, 2016, 4:07 AM UTC

coliveira wrote: post #316

MicroBerto wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> uneducated racist people You sorely overestimate anyone's intentions. Nearly all Trump types simply want productive jobs and to be left alone. I know this because I've worked in factories with them (non-Union). If it's racist to not want to send my job to China, then you really need to check the definition of racism. And why is it that so many legal immigrants are pro-Trump? Hmmm.....

Should we try to read intentions beyond what he is literally saying? The defense of Trump is solely based on the idea that he doesn't mean what he says. But this is tantamount to say that he is a liar. If that is the case, how can someone ever trust him? If you need to build on fear and lies to be elected, it is anyone's guess what might be the result.

> the idea that he doesn't mean what he says.

No Trump supporter is saying this at all. Most highly agree on at least one of his major platform issues. If we've learned one thing, it's that he means exactly what he says, and won't back down or apologize. This only makes him stronger.

The days of believing this guy is dumb are over. He has single-handedly changed everything in American politics, and did it while people like you were believing he was a clown. That too, makes him stronger.

Re: Re: Obama on Fetishizing Our Phones

#328

Post by MicroBerto » Tue, Mar 15, 2016, 4:12 AM UTC

coliveira wrote: post #314

MicroBerto wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Building a border? Forcing existing immigration laws to be upheld?

I mean simple things like deporting 11 million people, killing families of terrorists, legalizing torture, and closing the US to China imports, just for starters.

> deporting 11 million people

Not impossible. Other Presidents weren't even trying and they removed between 1-2 million.

I don't think you understand the amount of power ICE has if unhandcuffed and fully supported.

Plus, they can come back in legally. With papers. Through the door. What on earth is so hard about that???

> killing families of terrorists

We already do this - not directly, but if we know a family is shielding a high-value target, we will hit the entire building.

> legalizing torture

This is perhaps hyperbole, but wanting to play on a level playing field is not exactly an earth-shattering request. There are ways to intimidate without 'torture'.

> closing the US to China imports

Doubtful, but pushing for tariffs from Congress is within reason and would be supported by a great part of America.

Re: Re: Obama on Fetishizing Our Phones

#329

Post by coliveira » Tue, Mar 15, 2016, 12:26 PM UTC

MicroBerto wrote: post #327

coliveira wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Should we try to read intentions beyond what he is literally saying? The defense of Trump is solely based on the idea that he doesn't mean what he says. But this is tantamount to say that he is a liar. If that is the case, how can someone ever trust him? If you need to build on fear and lies to be elected, it is anyone's guess what might be the result.

> the idea that he doesn't mean what he says. No Trump supporter is saying this at all. Most highly agree on at least one of his major platform issues. If we've learned one thing, it's that he means exactly what he says, and won't back down or apologize. This only makes him stronger. The days of believing this guy is dumb are over. He has single-handedly changed everything in American politics, and did it while peopl…

Ok, if you believe what he says this means that I am right. I would never vote for someone who treats women as meat and hates other cultures.

Re: Re: Obama on Fetishizing Our Phones

#330

Post by mikeash » Tue, Mar 15, 2016, 1:29 PM UTC

MicroBerto wrote: post #326

mikeash wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trump inherited tens of millions. Other people have done the "market simulator" thing and the result is that Trump has not outperformed the market. My shell script would have done about as well at growing Trump's wealth as Trump did. Turning tens of millions into a few billions over the past forty years is a cakewalk. I don't know why you think it's "laughable" to say this. It doesn't even require smart investing, ju…

Yep, it's clearly that easy when you can look backwards at it. You have a time machine too? You and I both know that you would have shit your emotional bricks in every downturn... while these guys are all buying more . And if not that error, then you likely would have generated some other failure. If you're so good, you'd have that shell script up and running by now. Use that 20/20 hindsight to go do it in the future…

Sure, I'll call Trump lucky. What do you call it when someone inherits eight figures, if not luck?

I love how you constantly make stuff up about me, then argue against the stuff you made up. No wonder you're a Trump supporter. It's a personality match!