From the horse's mouth: http://pompeo.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=...
Time for a Rigorous National Debate About Surveillance
11–20 of 93 posts
Re: Time for a Rigorous National Debate About Surveillance
#12Those who voted for Trump - did you know you were going to get this? I think Trump's stance on Apple was pretty indicative of where things are headed.
> Those who voted for Trump - did you know you were going to get this?
Of course we did, we know this next 4 years are going to be largely terrible and he will be a horrendous president. However sometimes before you can rebuild you need to burn the existing structure to the ground first. We're tired of the status quo and want significant change in how we're represented. Sometimes you have to endure a little pain before things get better.
EDIT: I think the next round of house, senate and presidental campaigns/elections will be vastly different (for the better) than the last 20 years.
Re: Time for a Rigorous National Debate About Surveillance
#13And it will continue to be a red flag until and unless it becomes common among individuals to communicate that way. Really, more individual education is the only practical way to de-stigmatize strong encryption in the eyes of authority; it can't be wrong if everyone's doing it, but if everyone isn't, it looks suspicious.
Re: Time for a Rigorous National Debate About Surveillance
#14Just like keeping the curtains drawn on your house is a red flag...
Re: Time for a Rigorous National Debate About Surveillance
#15I'm going to go out on a limb here. I think he's right. It's a red flag, not the only red flag. Like, if you use strong encryption, have associated with known drug traffickers, and served time in prison on a felony charge, someone might want to keep an eye on you. It's one of many factors that may or may not be worth considering. The use of strong encryption alone should not be considered bad.
I think that is a more accurate characterization. There are lots of things which can indicate you're trouble. One or even two of them is probably not an issue, once you get to three or four it starts to be harder to explain away.
Re: Time for a Rigorous National Debate About Surveillance
#16I'm going to go out on a limb here. I think he's right. It's a red flag, not the only red flag. Like, if you use strong encryption, have associated with known drug traffickers, and served time in prison on a felony charge, someone might want to keep an eye on you. It's one of many factors that may or may not be worth considering. The use of strong encryption alone should not be considered bad.
This argument is similar to the "nothing to hide" argument. People shouldn't be flagged just for wanting privacy.
Re: Time for a Rigorous National Debate About Surveillance
#17For anyone confused about the date of this article, it was co-authored by the incoming CIA director Mike Pompeo at the beginning of this year.
Re: Time for a Rigorous National Debate About Surveillance
#18Those who voted for Trump - did you know you were going to get this? I think Trump's stance on Apple was pretty indicative of where things are headed.
I'm not surprised by this.
I also wouldn't have been surprised if a Clinton appointee had said this, either. Remember that her husband was trying to mandate key escrow and she herself, on the campaign trail, said that she wanted to monitor everything possible to prevent terror attacks.
Re: Time for a Rigorous National Debate About Surveillance
#19good luck putting a red flag on the 1 billion WhatsApp users
Re: Time for a Rigorous National Debate About Surveillance
#20Those who voted for Trump - did you know you were going to get this? I think Trump's stance on Apple was pretty indicative of where things are headed.
i voted for trump because hacker news told me the universe would unravel when he won. i'm still here, but apparently i'll be wearing a leash soon.