Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

FBI director Comey backs new Feinstein push for decrypt bill

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 219 posts

Re: FBI director Comey backs new Feinstein push for decrypt bill

#41

Post by adventured »

jrs95 wrote: post #39
averagewall wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Luckily you have democracy so her California voters can remove her. They apparently want to keep her so she should stay.

That's assuming voters are rational actors which is clearly not the case

Nothing the parent said assumes voters are rational.

They pointed out that CA voters can remove her. True.

They pointed out she's still there, so the plausible majority of the people that cast votes must have wanted to elect her vs the opposition choice (as of the last election). True.

Re: FBI director Comey backs new Feinstein push for decrypt bill

#42

Post by guntars »

jrs95 wrote: post #39
averagewall wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Luckily you have democracy so her California voters can remove her. They apparently want to keep her so she should stay.

That's assuming voters are rational actors which is clearly not the case

I love how it's always the "other" voters that are irrational and voting against their best interests, never the observer.

Re: FBI director Comey backs new Feinstein push for decrypt bill

#43

Post by thaumasiotes »

averagewall wrote: post #33
omginternets wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Can it be ambiguous to only use who instead of whom? If not, then it's probably not important, just feels painful for people who know the rules. That's as much an indictment of the rule itself as it is of people breaking it.

No, it can't[1]. However, vestigial marking of present-tense third-person-singular verbs is going strong and pretty much nobody considers the fact that it's completely useless as an argument against doing it.

The difference is that nearly everyone doesn't know the who/whom rule -- it is dead -- while nearly everyone does know the living pres.3sg rule, and they have trouble violating it even if in the abstract they might like to.

[1] The strongest argument in this direction is that no one in the modern day knows what whom means or under what circumstances it appears, meaning that when a whom is encountered it can only make them more confused.

Re: FBI director Comey backs new Feinstein push for decrypt bill

#44

Post by thaumasiotes »

bamurphymac1 wrote: post #18
omginternets wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I thing so too, friend.

Thing of this as the logical extension of the analysis "you've got another thing coming". ;D

Re: FBI director Comey backs new Feinstein push for decrypt bill

#45

Post by [deleted] »

pdelbarba wrote: post #22
rdxm wrote: post #6

geeeez, how long is Cali going to foist Feinstein on the rest of the country. The level of idiocy is just beyond painful... Edit to add: of course the same could be said about the remaining 49 states and their reps/sens as well...

Yea, here is Colorado we have Cory Gardner. Rank and file republican in an increasingly deep blue state. Currently leading the pack as most hostile to his constituent's interests: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/congress-trump-score/

[deleted]

Re: FBI director Comey backs new Feinstein push for decrypt bill

#47

Post by 1457389 »

grandalf wrote: post #30

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…

>He'd quite likely prefer that the FBI be legally allowed to torture suspects if extreme techniques were viewed as likely to result in useful information. To law enforcement, the rights of a suspect are a barrier to many convictions.

Not Comey. In this committee session he bluntly said torture is not effective and that his personal standard for what constitutes torture is more stringent than that in the statutes.

Re: FBI director Comey backs new Feinstein push for decrypt bill

#48

Post by greeneggs »

dv_dt wrote: post #36
guelo wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't believe that is true. A quick Google search turned up nothing.

http://www.davidforcalifornia.com/ 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.

Michael Eisen

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/01/qa-michael-eisen-want...

Feinstein is now 83. I don't think she has announced either way, but it is likely she'll retire. If so, then there will probably be a lot of candidates.

Re: FBI director Comey backs new Feinstein push for decrypt bill

#50

Post by pgodzin »

> We all love privacy, we all care about public safety and none of us want backdoors — we don’t want access to devices built in in some way. What we want to work with the manufacturers on is to figure out how can we accommodate both interests in a sensible way

How is this possibly reconcilable?

Post reply on HN