John McCain is partly responsible for the rise of ISIS by having architected the funding of the Free Syrian Army whose members went off to form ISIS and who continues to be funded by us, with a great deal of the resources finding their way into ISIS hands.
I've seen this claim floating around that we're funding the FSA which is just channeling money to ISIS, but I haven't been able to find any reliable source. Could you please link to something that backs that up?
John McCain wants to outlaw encryption that the US government can't crack
141–150 of 196 posts
Re: John McCain wants to outlaw encryption that the US government can't crack
#142Earlier quoted context omitted.
OpenBSD cd image would give you absolutely nothing when it comes to defending against state level actors sorry. And you are assuming that in their proposed reality that would be as easily achievable as it is today, you'll be surprised how effective can a crackdown be once a government sets its mind to it.
> you'll be surprised how effective can a crackdown be once a government sets its mind to it. Effective like prohibition was? Or the war on drugs? All that will happen is people will stop using macOS and Windows because that is all the US government can pressure.
Are you trying to compare the amount of people that can distill moonshine or smuggle drugs to the amount of people capable of writing secure encryption software?
The effectiveness of limiting proliferation is tied directly to the difficulty and the scarcity of the human capital involved, this is why restricting the proliferation of small arms which can be build by anyone with some machining experience is near impossible, but limiting the proliferation of say nuclear arms and technology is quite possible.
It would surprise me if the NSA (or any other agency) doesn't have a list of all or most software engineers and mathematicians which are capable of designing crypto, that mailing list isn't that big.
Re: John McCain wants to outlaw encryption that the US government can't crack
#143Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nah, what we need is fewer rich people and more women and people of color--a closer match to the actual demographics of the people of the country. I would no sooner put a anti-gov politician in charge than hire a manager who's opposed to the existence of the team he's managing.
> Nah, what we need is fewer rich people and more women and people of color Please no sexism, classism, and racism in choosing people. Best people for the job regardless of their income tax bracket or their skin color. Just put people in office that understand how to run a country and limit the powers of government.
This is a common and frustrating sentiment when people try to counter sexism/classism/racism. The real question is this: Is it really true that rich white males are generally more competent?
If they aren't, what can we do to remove that bias and get what you ask for?
If they are, what's preventing other groups from gaining competence?
Re: John McCain wants to outlaw encryption that the US government can't crack
#144Is it really worth leaving a thoughtful comment about such an ignorant statement? It's clear to me that these people have no idea what encryption actually is and only have a cursory understanding of what it does. They're aware that criminals and terrorists can use encryption to communicate covertly. That's why they want to ban it. Are they also aware that the exact same technology is used to protect their online bank…
> Are they also aware that the exact same technology is used to protect their online banking? Yes they are -- that's why it's not a matter of passing a one-page bill overnight, but rather a more complex piece of legislation that in order to be done right, need time and bi-partisan involvement. And I found it hard to believe you don't see a difference between encrypting your bank transaction, and encrypting your onlin…
Banking doesn't strike me as a use-case that the government needs to worry about, since a mandate already exists to report financial information and suspicious banking activity to law enforcement. A backdoor would be more convenient for them, but encryption of your communications between you and the bank does not mean the bank is encrypting your financial and demographic information in such a way that they themselves will not be able to retrieve it.
What's being discussed here is the Apple strategy, where the service provider can provide a service to the public without the ability to retrieve information generated by the service.
The desire for companies to provide such services was likely spurred by the government's insistence that they provide private encryption keys, even in the event that they provide access to encrypted information not limited to the direct subject of a warrant, and the federal courts' repeated confirmation of the government's power to enforce such requests. See the demise of Lavabit [1].
There are numerous technical workarounds to this problem; for example, a private-key infrastructure that generates one key pair per message, or per customer. However, none of those workarounds allow a service provider to market products that are end-to-end secure from eavesdropping or the later revelation of the customer's information to empowered third parties.
So in essence, the argument I'm making is that it doesn't matter if there is a fundamental difference between banking and a chat application, because in either case the government either already has or is actively seeking the power to obtain the information you generate.
As it's hard to imagine a world where malicious parties would not be able to obtain encrypted communication mechanisms (unless you ban open-source, computers, pens, and the human brain), it's difficult to reconcile the above with the proposed effect this law would have, and it's very difficult to imagine the government restricting the application of these new powers to terrorist organizations only. See the history of the Patriot Act, for example [2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavabit
[2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/10/29/...
Re: John McCain wants to outlaw encryption that the US government can't crack
#145The Senior Senator from Arizona needs to just retire and enjoy his twilight years. There was a time where I found him interesting, engaging, and worth voting for. It's been several years since that was the case.
Re: John McCain wants to outlaw encryption that the US government can't crack
#146This is Edward Snowden's fault. Let's look at the facts: * Edward Snowden declared war against terrorists. * Edward Snowden started indescriminently bombing villages in the middle east. * Edward Snowden created massive ill will against America, then left a huge power vacuum in the region by pulling out after, dare I say it, conducting terrorism against the native inhabitants. So, Ed, wherever you are, this is your fa…
"Indescriminately(sic) bombing?" "conducting terrorism?"
I led a platoon in Iraq, and we did nothing of the sort.
I'm fine with opposition to U.S. foreign policy; this is just lazy slander, and it shows a very shallow understanding of what actually happened.
Re: John McCain wants to outlaw encryption that the US government can't crack
#147Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hillay clinton is probably pro-hide-that-hardisk. Rand Paul is libertarian and mostly anti-gov. We need more people like him in Washington.
Nah, what we need is fewer rich people and more women and people of color--a closer match to the actual demographics of the people of the country. I would no sooner put a anti-gov politician in charge than hire a manager who's opposed to the existence of the team he's managing.
> I would no sooner put a anti-gov politician in charge than hire a manager who's opposed to the existence of the team he's managing.
That is how you get ever expanding bureaucracy, regulatory overreach, kingdom building and information silos. Those who can see beyond their own team and work to make their department irrelevant are exactly the kind of people you want as managers in your company.
Re: John McCain wants to outlaw encryption that the US government can't crack
#148I love how Republicans believe that outlawing guns won't stop criminals from having guns while at the same time believing that outlawing encryption will keep criminals from using encryption. Encryption methods are far easier to transport and spread illegally than gun are.
"Republicans" Rand Paul is pretty openly pro-encryption. Hillary Clinton is equivocating; I think she's probably anti-encryption. These may be exceptions that prove the rule but I think what we're really seeing is a combination of ignorance, pandering and authoritarianism across the spectrum.
Her husband while in office was strongly anti-encryption and fought hard for exactly this type of legislation.
Re: John McCain wants to outlaw encryption that the US government can't crack
#149Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't Rand Paul a libertarian?
Only if you considerably stretch the definition. He's a moderate Republican closer to old school states' rights conservatism than neoconservatism, but certainly not a libertarian, though he does exploit the label to make himself look edgy.
This sort of true-Scotsmanning does libertarianism no favors. I say that having voted for Gary Johnson last time around. Rand Paul would be better for USA residents and for the world than any president in my lifetime has been. Of course he isn't perfect, but no one who was would have anything to do with national government.
Re: John McCain wants to outlaw encryption that the US government can't crack
#150Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hillay clinton is probably pro-hide-that-hardisk. Rand Paul is libertarian and mostly anti-gov. We need more people like him in Washington.
Nah, what we need is fewer rich people and more women and people of color--a closer match to the actual demographics of the people of the country. I would no sooner put a anti-gov politician in charge than hire a manager who's opposed to the existence of the team he's managing.
Even if those women, like Hillary, have no idea about encryption, but certainly want to have the government closely control who can have want kinds? In this context, anti-government means the government has no business legislating encryption.