Oi! Hillary
Just cos you like spaffing your emails everywhere, we don't, all, want to do the same.
Hillary Clinton has joined a growing number of politicians using the Paris attacks earlier this month to argue for a weaker encryption. Speaking at Council on Foreign Relations in Washington Thursday, the presidential candidate talked extensively about Islamic State, the recent attacks in Paris and what the US government could …
Explain to her that yes we can fit a government back door.
And that backdoor will also apply to the computer/email/cell phone you are using
And we will give that backdoor to the FBI,CIA, Police, Coastguard, OSHA, IRS and every foreign government that asks.
One of who will hand it over to ISIS - so you are asking us to give ISIS a backdoor into every government system ?
The Big Question is always whether or not we can trust our own governements, recently they have shown that we can't.
Hilary Clinton is a dangerous woman who appears to have only greed, desire for power and mischief as her primary goals.. I am sure that she must dine quite often with the Bushes.
She is a liar on all sorts of levels (recall the tall tale of disembarking under active fire in former Yugoslavia, the Whitewater affair, suicides associated with that, many more, the e-mail, the Libyan 'consulate', which turns out not to have been a consulate at all).
Hilary makes Bush the second almost look a model of probity.
Bush the first almost was.
Say it along with me 'm*ff m*nch*r' for prez!
No, she just has many of the same advisors as George II.
Trump is the most entertaining candidate, it is a little frightening in some ways, but he wrote The Art of the Deal, he keeps saying that he will be able to make deals with Russia and Iran, restore decent jobs to the USA, pays for his own campaign, sorry, I know he says stupid things at times, but from afar, he sure looks like the most interesting of a horrid bunch.
"Trump is the most entertaining candidate... but from afar, he sure looks like the most interesting of a horrid bunch."
Pick Trump from the following list:
Egg and bacon
Egg, sausage and bacon
Egg and Spam
Egg, bacon and Spam
Egg, bacon, sausage and Spam
Spam, bacon, sausage and Spam
Spam, egg, Spam, Spam, bacon and Spam
Spam, Spam, Spam, egg and Spam
Spam, Spam, Spam, Spam, Spam, Spam, baked beans, Spam, Spam, Spam and Spam
Trump is a drooling maroon outside his little area of expertise. One of the banes of politics in the US - and possibly elsewhere - is business men who are confused about the nature of government and politics. One of the nightmares of the '90s was the emergence of the word "customer" in use for any member of the public dealing with a government agency. Customer "satisfaction" surveys even appeared. The same miasma of clueless greed has invaded many areas including healthcare here in the US. The unspoken watch word of many HMOs is "we want to give them less and make them feel happy about that." Unhappily many of my fellow USians seem to think that the bigger (wealthier) a company is the better its products must be (look at dominance of Microsoft if you doubt that - the only decent product they ever produced internally was a mouse).
One of the banes of politics in the US - and possibly elsewhere - is business men who are confused about the nature of government and politics.
The reality is that career politicians are confused about the nature of business, as their goals are in direct opposition.
In business you want to keep overhead down so you are rewarded for spending as little as possible, keeping headcount down, and making a profit.
Government is exactly the opposite. Since the purpose of government is to spend money, a politician is rewarded with power by spending as much as possible, and keeping headcount as high as possible. You are actually punished if you make a profit.
It's easy to just brush off a businessperson what wants to get involved in politics, but the truth of it is that Trump has a history of making money for state and local governments. You don't have to like him, and he can be an asshole at times, but you can't argue with his record.
This isn't surprising that Hillary is against encryption, as she has consistently supported the surveillance provisions of the PATRIOT act from 2001 up to this year.
Meanwhile, Trump is against backdoors, supports warrants, and wants to limit government surveillance. Have the Earth's magnetic poles flipped as well?
How does that song go?... "The party on the left / Is now the party on the right..."
No, Clinton you idiot corporate whore, we do not trust our own governments which is exactly why public courts, proof positive we do not trust government and demand they prove every thing they say or do.
We also require search warrants issued by a court because yet again, we neither trust nor believe you.
The Big Question is always whether or not we can trust our own governements, recently they have shown that we can't.
"recently"?
No government has ever been trustworthy. That's not an attribute that attaches to government. That's why we attempt to create and maintain systems of governments with checks and balances; but that maintenance requires constant vigilance, and the best anyone's ever achieved is a cyclic pattern of periodically reducing the power of the State to a relatively reasonable level.
"One of who will hand it over to ISIS - so you are asking us to give ISIS a backdoor into every government system ?"
Oh no, they won't ask, it'll be a third party that DOES has backdoor access, that also feeds ISIS because that's their policy - just like they're doing right now.
"We need to challenge our best minds in the private sector to work with our best minds in the public sector to develop solutions that will both keep us safe and protect our privacy"
Perhaps when the "best minds" in the public sector start embracing AES-256 and basic security hygiene as standard practice we can all start talking sensibly (and securely). Some basic instruction in logic, science and mathematics wouldn't hurt either. The best minds in the private sector actually know what they are talking about, unlike your official data-hoover salespeople and colleagues.
Hillary, you really, really need to trust the math. RIght now, I wouldn't trust you and your cohorts with the answers to a crossword puzzle.
The best minds in the (US) public sector have required AES 256 for years where classified material is involved.
As for former Secretary Clinton's comments, it is worthwhile to consider the source: a major department head who took it on herself to do sensitive government business using an insecure and illegally operated private server.
Her email server seems to have been, in practice, far more secure than the official State email server which still has evil romping through it at every turn. Hell, our allies are the people we have to rely on to keep us informed when yet another breach has occurred. Funny when her own (probably correct) paranoid delusions serve security.
"Her email server seems to have been, in practice, far more secure than the official State email server...." That is not the point. The actual point is the legality of her actions, not whether they were secure. As a comparison, I could argue that I would be safer and less likely to be mugged if I walked down certain streets in London with a loaded pistol in my hand, telling all that approached that I would shoot them if they came within ten feet. As an anti-mugging tactic it would probably be quite successful. Of course, I would still be in breach of the law and subject to arrest and punishment.
It is also hard to ascertain exactly how secure Shrillary's email server (and third-party cloud backup) actually were when she was allowed to clean and tweak it over months before handing it over. And then that matters nought if she or her minions knowingly sent restricted material via that server to those unauthorised to see it, as the transmission of that restricted material is the criminal act.
Wrong, illegal AND insecure, very insecure. And full of unattributed classified material that the FBI is "investigating". No doubt no case will be found to prosecute, because "Hilary". Clinton's are not subject to the same laws that other people are. Justice in the US is highly politicized especially at this level, and never more so than now.
G. W. Bush looks like a model of probity and honesty compared to the sleazeball Hilary Clinton. One only has to look at how the Clinton's have used the Clinton Foundation, a nominal charitable foundation that takes in hundreds of millions a year and spends less than 10% on "charitable causes" while paying far larger sums for staff salaries, travel and expenses. It is nothing more than a Clinton political machine operation pretending to be a charitable organization, utterly shameless, and yet tolerated somehow.
I've a relative who handled (maintained) classified systems for the USDoS and the individual's opinions about the state of the system were very low. Worse, the hardware (and software) was typically years out of date and often with serious incompatibilities between "home rolled" systems provided by the military and OTS software and hardware acquired from vendors such as MS in a spirit of cost "reduction."
Hilary is clearly worried she might end up with a snuke in her snizz.
I thought to be called "news" it had to be new?
This just in: Politician blows hot air, doesn't understand mathematics. Dogs and cats continue to fight. Winter is cold.
"It seems obvious that, if there is a terrible attack in the United States, privacy advocates and tech companies instantly will lose this argument."
Because while she may not understand such complex things as math, she does seem to understand that all it takes is for a single "attack" to take place to make the public submit. Fear is a powerful tool, no?
Only in the dreams of certain Cheney haters. Dick's net worth is well below $100M according to Wkipedia.
"Cheney's net worth, estimated to be between $19 million and $86 million, is largely derived from his post at Halliburton."
So Cheney's money came from a private job. Contrast with Hillary, who got her billions by doing charity work.
Yeah, me: I like him a bunch. So too, millions like me. And I want him back.
Hillary is not a hawk, wouldn't understand diplomacy, economics, military needs or flat anything if you paid her. Even after you paid her.
Cheney is exactly what we need. But he is probably sick to death of US. I don't blame him. I wanted him as Prez from the beginning, but he'll be likely an advisor (if he wants) if the Repubs get back in power.
You Brits don't understand how much we Yanks need more of the Bush family advisors. They're the only reason why we aren't having another Dunkirk.
Don't forget the real estate dealings, Obama also made it from 'community activist' to multimillionaire off the back of illicit real-estate dealings. Interesting that the US press is long silent about both the Clinton's and the Obama's real-estate dealings.
Hilary's triumph as a younger lawyer in having a rapist acquitted, then admitting that she knew the girl had been raped, and boasting about how clever she had been to get the rapist acquitted, says a lot about her mentality.
Actually, if Clinton as a lawyer KNEW that her client had indeed raped the complainant, then is is ethically entirely improper for her to support a claim of not guilty except on technical grounds. Lawyers really don't want to know if you "did it", they only want to know your defense.
Then I doubt that Clinton even knows that ethics is a county in England, so far is she removed from even understanding that such a word or concept actually exists.
And as for Cheney & Haliburton, that's a damn sight more ethical than influence peddling via a fake charitable foundation that is really a political machine operation for Clintons Inc.
You said it's ethically improper for a lawyer to support a not guilty plea of a guilty client if the lawyer knows the client is guilty. Am I correct that that is what you are saying? If so, you are wrong. Lawyers have guilty clients all the time that plead not guilty.
And what does it matter what they know from the client? It's privileged communication, and the lawyer is safe.
You said it's ethically improper for a lawyer to support a not guilty plea of a guilty client if the lawyer knows the client is guilty. Am I correct that that is what you are saying? If so, you are wrong
He's not. It's ethically incorrect deliberately to seek the wrong outcome. Lawyers are Officers of the Court, with a duty to see fair play.
Lawyers have guilty clients all the time that plead not guilty.
Indeed they do - but if the lawyer knows that the plea is a sham, he has a duty to inform the court.
From the American Bar Association's Rules of Profession Conduct Rule 3.3(b):
A lawyer who represents a client in an adjudicative proceeding and who knows that a person intends to engage, is engaging or has engaged in criminal or fraudulent conduct related to the proceeding shall take reasonable remedial measures, including, if necessary, disclosure to the tribunal.
Note that rule 3.3(c) backs this up:
The duties stated in paragraphs (a) and (b) continue to the conclusion of the proceeding, and apply even if compliance requires disclosure of information otherwise protected by Rule 1.6.
So, in the event that a suspect pleads not guilty and the lawyer knows that plea to be false, he has a professional duty to disclose that knowledge to the court - even if he only finds out about it mid-way through the trial.
Of course, we're talking about lawyers. A significant proportion of them - not all, but way too many - don't actually care about ethics; all they want is results, at any cost.But the preamble to above Rules has the following to say:
[19] Failure to comply with an obligation or prohibition imposed by a Rule is a basis for invoking the disciplinary process
It is quite clear that a lawyer knowingly supporting a false "not guilty" plea is subject to the Disciplinary Process. That this does not happen regularly speaks volumes...
And what does it matter what they know from the client? It's privileged communication, and the lawyer is safe.
Not so; see the above quote. Rule 1.6 is the rule relating to confidentiality - rules 3.3(b) and 3.3(c) clearly state that such confidentiality should be breached if the lawyer knows that the suspect is guilty.
Vic.
"So Cheney's money came from a private job.:
At a company that took $138 BILLION in no-bid government contracts for the last war.
So yes, a private job that paid with tax payers money.
Yes, I know he was VP during the war. Where did he go after his term? That's right, back to his old company, Haliburton.
Coincidence, I'm sure. /sarcasm
I'm not sure we can publicly determine how much those people are worth. And it's possible they "control" large things we'll never see. But I doubt Hillary has billions (US 10^9 ones), and Cheney has the most invisible fortune of anyone. Officially, he didn't make anything off the Iraq war.
"....the Democrats' own Dick Cheney may well end up in the seat...." Firstly, Shrillary is only ranting on about security and smacking ISIS because she wants to put clear water between herself and Bernie Saunders, and blow a smokescreen over her failings dealing with Islamists in Benghazi. Secondly, whilst it may give her a better chance of beating Saunders, she will lose BIG TIME if she tries to go up against just about any of the Republican candidates on a security ticket, plus alienate too many of the wierdos on the Left she needs to turn out and vote in the Presidential elections. So expect her to switch back to "tax the rich, spend, spend, spend on special interest groups that vote Democrat" as soon as the Democratic nomination is sown up.
This post has been deleted by its author
Hildabeast fails to grasp one important aspect of grand strategy; a passive defense is ultimately no defense. By conceding the initiative to ISIS et. al. they will find the defense's weaknesses and exploit them. Ask the French about the Maginot Line or Hitler about the Atlantic Wall. Both were defensive failures because they were passive defenses.
The Maginot Line (a series of supporting fortifications delivering defence in depth) and the Atlantic Wall (a comprehensive plan to turn the north French coast into a killzone) both failed if due to a single cause because they were incomplete (did not cover Belgian border) and unfinished respectively.
"It seems obvious that, if there is a terrible attack in the United States, privacy advocates and tech companies instantly will lose this argument."
Because while she may not understand such complex things as math, she does seem to understand that all it takes is for a single "attack" to take place to make the public submit.
While I sympathize with your argument, note that the passage you quoted was from the Washington Post's fear-mongering editorial, not from Clinton. Birds of a feather, and all that, but she didn't actually say that particular bit.