31–40 of 219 posts
Diane Feinstein is old and needs to retire. She is completely out of touch with the needs of her constituency, and comes off more like an old guard republican rather then a democrat that she is supposed to be.
There are at least two announced Democratic primary challengers to Feinstein.
What have they stopped using such methods? I think if they wanted to get anything like this moving forward they need to show results. Not too many trust the government these days.
I do not like the idea of "backdoors" but I can see realistic need for such things. I think many are against such things "until" some massive WMD type attack then the tune will change.
> saying such legislation would be “better from a public safety perspective” According to whom, we the people or a bunch of authoritarians who'd like to be able to access every nook and cranny of our personal lives?
Forgive me, as this is completely tangential to your point, but it should be "according to whom". A simple explanation: https://www.grammarly.com/blog/who-vs-whom-its-not-as-compli... :) Call me silly, but I think grammar is important. I hope you don't take this the wrong way! Edit: lol, I thing I made a typo earlier.
New Rule: If you want to propose cybersecurity legislation, you need to pass the fizz buzz test.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are at least two announced Democratic primary challengers to Feinstein.
I don't believe that is true. A quick Google search turned up nothing.
Uhh, I think I'm blanking on the other. Both will likely lose, but maybe it will make her look over shoulder and keep closer to her constituents.
> saying such legislation would be “better from a public safety perspective” According to whom, we the people or a bunch of authoritarians who'd like to be able to access every nook and cranny of our personal lives?
Forgive me, as this is completely tangential to your point, but it should be "according to whom". A simple explanation: https://www.grammarly.com/blog/who-vs-whom-its-not-as-compli... :) Call me silly, but I think grammar is important. I hope you don't take this the wrong way! Edit: lol, I thing I made a typo earlier.
> saying such legislation would be “better from a public safety perspective” According to whom, we the people or a bunch of authoritarians who'd like to be able to access every nook and cranny of our personal lives?
Forgive me, as this is completely tangential to your point, but it should be "according to whom". A simple explanation: https://www.grammarly.com/blog/who-vs-whom-its-not-as-compli... :) Call me silly, but I think grammar is important. I hope you don't take this the wrong way! Edit: lol, I thing I made a typo earlier.
Diane Feinstein is old and needs to retire. She is completely out of touch with the needs of her constituency, and comes off more like an old guard republican rather then a democrat that she is supposed to be.
Luckily you have democracy so her California voters can remove her. They apparently want to keep her so she should stay.
From his perspective as the head of the FBI whose job it is to achieve outcomes within the law, of course Comey advocates encryption backdoors. He would likely also advocate allowing the FBI to suspend the bill of rights for any suspect during the duration of an investigation, and he'd quite likely prefer that the FBI be legally allowed to torture suspects if extreme techniques were viewed as likely to result in usef…
In this case, it might be better to assume malice rather than incompetence. In the 1950's it was s/terrorist/communist/, but it was a remarkably effective political tool. We might be in the same situation.
But this time, our fates are all linked. Once shipping backdoors becomes mainstream, it might be impossible to go back.
We should try to think of some concrete steps to resist this. It feels like we have to try, since there's so much at stake.
Could we reverse engineer the political forces at play? We could try to think of the most effective thing we could do, and then focus on that.