151–157 of 157 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think to the extent of limiting expenditures and generating revenue, I can only recall Clinton's administration as one that actually created a surplus. In this regard, I posit government officials do not necessarily tend to act this way (at the expense of American tax dollars).
I understood business-minded to mean sympathetic to the desire of the business community.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I could be wrong, but I think there is a difference in that with Clinton, there was an expectation of what kind of administration she was going to have. Trump, on the other hand, has been unpredictable since his election (I speak more about his inclusion of Elon Musk into his advisory council as well as Bill Gates comparing him to JFK). I think an administration that is business-minded can yield great economic prospe…
"I think an administration that is business-minded can yield great economic prosperity but might not necessarily have interests in maintaining the rights of American citizens." I don't think we've seen an administration in the last 25 years that had an interest in maintaining the rights of American citizens.
Good post and worth the read. His four priorities are: 1. fight the fights. There will be more government surveillance and more corporate surveillance. 2. prepare for those fights. Much of the next four years will be reactive, but we can prepare somewhat. 3. lay the groundwork for a better future. 4. continue to solve the actual problems. The serious security issues around cybercrime, cyber-espionage, cyberwar, the I…
From an IT perspective, I think it's more important to recognize the increasing complexity and chaos of our security environment, and recognize that governments are not homogeneous objects, but themselves composed of good actors and bad actors.
Engage the good, protect yourself from the bad.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We wouldn't be having these conversations if the leaks hadn't happened. It was suspected before, now it's known. That's a fairly big difference. Or in other words, speaking about nation state backhaul taps, etc as a threat model before made you a paranoid OpenBSD cyberpunk: now it makes you an average HN commenter.
"We" are having these conversations, but in the time since the Snowden leak, have we seen the government move away from the behaviors and patterns that Snowden brought to light?
It took roughly 2 years between the Washington Post first reporting on Watergate and Nixon's resignation. And that was pertaining to multiple obviously illegal activities. National security and executive orders have a lot more gray area.
The most important thing is to keep the pressure on, keep it in the public discourse, and make it uncomfortable for anyone who supports the apparatus.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I know EFF and Schneier have been fighting the expansion of the US spy machine, but it seems like a lot of more liberal leaning groups didn't push back when Obama expanded policies started under Bush and that's pretty disappointing. Civil liberties and rights are to be protected even if your candidate/party is in power. Not just when the other party takes over.
This seems irrelevant and possibly untrue. What liberal leaning groups are you referring to?
A lot of pro-marijuana groups (let's face it they are liberal groups) weren't aggressively going after the DEA under Obama because his administration had a hands-off approach. Suddenly this is a huge issue with the nomination of Sessions, even though the law is still the same under both administrations.
None of the groups have gone after the flagrant violation of 1st amendment rights that the 'hate speech' laws bring about. You might not like a neonazi defaming Jewish people but hate speech laws are counter to the US Constitution.
The ACLU hasn't defended aggressions against the 2nd amendment.
The PATRIOT act was renewed under Obama. The NDAA was also renewed with increased powers under Obama. NSA spying has increased, the FBI has taken more liberties in 'national security letters' and the CIA has still had free reign to do as they please.
Yet all of the liberal watchdog groups gave Obama a free pass, even though he was basically the same as Bush whom they hated. You can go read his record: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_on_mass_surveilla... and yet the ACLU never took out a full page ad about his spying. Maybe you will also read this editorial: http://articles.latimes.com/2011/sep/29/opinion/la-oe-turley...
Where were the 'civil liberty' or 'civil rights' groups these past 8 years?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This seems irrelevant and possibly untrue. What liberal leaning groups are you referring to?
The ACLU has, maybe for fund raising reasons, taken out a full page ad in the NYTimes promising to challenge Trump. They never took out a full page ad when Obama escalated the drone war or killed a US citizen without trial via drone strike. A lot of pro-marijuana groups (let's face it they are liberal groups) weren't aggressively going after the DEA under Obama because his administration had a hands-off approach. Sud…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The ACLU has, maybe for fund raising reasons, taken out a full page ad in the NYTimes promising to challenge Trump. They never took out a full page ad when Obama escalated the drone war or killed a US citizen without trial via drone strike. A lot of pro-marijuana groups (let's face it they are liberal groups) weren't aggressively going after the DEA under Obama because his administration had a hands-off approach. Sud…
Okay... but this has nothing to do with my comment.