My Priorities for the Next Four Years
schneier.com
My Priorities for the Next Four Years
1–10 of 157 posts
Re: My Priorities for the Next Four Years
#2> Under a Clinton administration, my list would have looked much the same.
And the political polarization and bantering continue. But at least there is some truth in there.
Re: My Priorities for the Next Four Years
#3> Under a Clinton administration, my list would have looked much the same. And the political polarization and bantering continue. But at least there is some truth in there.
The context of the next line is somewhat important:
> Trump's election just means the threats will be much greater, and the battles a lot harder to win.
Re: My Priorities for the Next Four Years
#4> Under a Clinton administration, my list would have looked much the same. And the political polarization and bantering continue. But at least there is some truth in there.
The context of the next line is somewhat important: > Trump's election just means the threats will be much greater, and the battles a lot harder to win.
I'm not sure I agree with this. Certainly most of these problems (surveilance, assaults on various liberties, etc.) were started/ramped up under W. Bush, but most of them were greately enhanced during Obama, so I have no reason to assume that Hillary might be any better (except better at PR/propaganda, of course).
Re: My Priorities for the Next Four Years
#5> Under a Clinton administration, my list would have looked much the same. And the political polarization and bantering continue. But at least there is some truth in there.
I homed in on the same quote.
Not an informative essay.
Re: My Priorities for the Next Four Years
#6> Under a Clinton administration, my list would have looked much the same. And the political polarization and bantering continue. But at least there is some truth in there.
Huh? Isn't that statement trying to defuse the political polarization?
Re: My Priorities for the Next Four Years
#7> Under a Clinton administration, my list would have looked much the same. And the political polarization and bantering continue. But at least there is some truth in there.
The context of the next line is somewhat important: > Trump's election just means the threats will be much greater, and the battles a lot harder to win.
Except the author never gets around to adding substance to his claims about how EITHER Clinton or Trump would be incrementally worse than Obama regarding "government/corporate surveillance."
I think it's off-topic[0]
Re: My Priorities for the Next Four Years
#8Interesting read, but I can't imagine how anyone could convince Google and Facebook to change their business models at this stage unless the market truly revolted and started moving away from their products due to privacy issues. I think change is much more likely to happen through disruption (which perhaps is the other side of his ideas, coming up with business models that are more privacy-friendly).
I think security and privacy are a lot more important to people than Facebook and Google's market share are thought to indicate. In 2017 they will be real selling points for a product if it can match the UX and features of the incumbents. That is the hard part -- particularly given that good UX for secure products has a long way to go. I don't believe it's impossible, but it requires a mindset shift in the industry. "Give an extra key to your friend/family member in case you lock yourself out" is an idea that's been with us a lot longer than "contact customer support." It just isn't how the tech industry has ever worked.
Re: My Priorities for the Next Four Years
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
The context of the next line is somewhat important: > Trump's election just means the threats will be much greater, and the battles a lot harder to win.
I'm not sure I agree with this. Certainly most of these problems (surveilance, assaults on various liberties, etc.) were started/ramped up under W. Bush, but most of them were greately enhanced during Obama, so I have no reason to assume that Hillary might be any better (except better at PR/propaganda, of course).
So far the surveillance and related laws suck, but to some extent they're controlled and somewhat public. Even before the Snowden revelations, some monitoring was expected, and some was talked about. Of course the scale and depth were a new revelation (tapping private links, etc.), but it existed in some kind of framework that was supposed to be controlled. (Regardless of how well that worked)
Since the new potential president is a lot less organised and generally random in his actions, the old framework will be harder to rely on. Who gets the access now? Who's tracked? Who's trusted if he doesn't believe the current agencies? That's still unknown and we may get more secret deals now without clearly defined rules (even if they're not public)
Basically we got a chaotic neutral/evil leader now. Anything can happen and I don't expect he'll care about the subtle effects of new decisions.
Re: My Priorities for the Next Four Years
#10> Under a Clinton administration, my list would have looked much the same. And the political polarization and bantering continue. But at least there is some truth in there.
Huh? Isn't that statement trying to defuse the political polarization?
You're assuming political preferences of the reader.
The author's attacking both Clinton and Trump without offering substantive reasons.