back to article McCain: Come to my encryption hearing. Tim Cook: No, I'm good. McCain: I hate you, I hate you, I hate you

US Senator John McCain (R-AZ) has thrown a hissy fit over the refusal of Apple CEO Tim Cook to attend a Senate hearing on encryption. Opening the Committee on Armed Services' hearing on cybersecurity this morning, McCain went out of his way to note that Cook has declined the senator's invitation to give testimony alongside …

Anonymous Coward

Boo fucking hoo.

I lost what little respect I had for McCain the day he picked Palin as his running mate. Now he's just an irrelevant old man constantly shouting at people to get off his lawn.

70
1
Silver badge

Re: Boo fucking hoo.

Sadly, I must agree with you. I would have loved to cast a vote for the John McCain who ran in 2000. In 2008, he sold his soul to the religious right to win the nomination, then doubled down on that stupidity by picking Palin. I think that move lost the election for him.

I don't know if President McCain could have done all that much better with the mess he would have inherited from Bush than Obama did, but I'm pretty sure that if McCain had taken office in 2001 instead of Bush there would have been less mess to inherit in 2009 at least on the foreign policy front.

44
0

This post has been deleted by its author

Gold badge
FAIL

"he picked Palin as his running mate. "

When this happened was anyone else thinking "Is this a disturbing new trend. Old politician gets "trophy" VP?"

4
0
Silver badge

Re: "he picked Palin as his running mate. "

I just thought "disturbing".... anyway, I think DougS already has said all there is to say.

2
0
Silver badge
Pint

Re: "he picked Palin as his running mate. "

Palin is a "trophy" ?

Must be a consolation prize trophy.

5
0

Re: Boo fucking hoo.

+10^6. Selecting Palin and her tacit encouragement of racism and rabble rousing are what has led us to Trump.

6
0
JLV
Silver badge

Re: "he picked Palin as his running mate. "

A Dunce Prize, you mean.

2
0
Devil

Re: Boo fucking hoo.

How could you ever respect a person who blocked repatriation of fellow Vietnam POWs he was afraid would reveal his treachery? He left them to rot to save his slimy hide.

http://polidics.com/ethics/fellow-pows-say-john-mccain-was-a-coward-and-a-traitor-in-viet-nam.html

3
8

Re: Boo fucking hoo.

For some unknown reason whenever someone mentions the name Palin I get an image of Forrest Gump in my head.

3
0
Silver badge

@jgarbo

I don't know anything about this stuff you're alleging, but it seems to be a pattern that if anyone that is considered a 'hero' or even had any military service at all runs for president, the other side finds some guys to come out of the woodwork to tear down their record. Either because they are partisan, or just getting paid off. This happened rather publicly with John Kerry, and to a lesser extent with the allegations that daddy's connections are what allowed Bush Jr. to get a cushy stateside air national guard posting (probably "to a lesser extent" because no one doubted it was true, and no one was claiming his national guard service made him a war hero)

I don't recall hearing anything about these allegations against McCain during the 2008 election, which is when they would have come out if there was even a shred of truth there, so I'm going to go out on a limb and assume they're so thinly sourced and conspiratorial that the MSM wouldn't touch them. Looking at the other links on that site you referenced, including stuff like "CIA operatives admit Al Qaeda is a complete fabrication" tell me that my suspicions are correct.

Heck these ideas are so fringe that even Trump hasn't heard them - because we know he'll parrot back any conspiracy theory he hears. No doubt when challenged on his "McCain is not a war hero" line if he'd heard of this he'd have mentioned it. Not like his handlers are capable of stopping the verbal diarrhea he's prone to, after all...

8
0

Re: Boo fucking hoo.

From the people who brought you Obama's a foreigner and muslim to boot, John Kerry was a swift boat coward, etc.

2
0
Silver badge
IT Angle

Sure, John--you can pass your legislation...

As long as you agree to tie the Republican party's political fundraising income to future U.S. tech industry sales, once you torpedo the industry's global competitive position.

Does that sound like something you could live with? I didn't think so.

14
2
Silver badge
Thumb Up

To my surprise...

...Tim Cook showed much more political aplomb than any of the Repo's in Congress. Way to Go, Timmy!

23
2

Theatre. Nothing more.

If Senator McCain really wanted Tim Cook there, McCain's committee has subpoena powers. Of course, Cook has lawyers who can fight a subpoena, but McCain can certainly send an invitation with teeth.

9
1

Re: Theatre. Nothing more.

McCain is stupid, no doubt about that. But even he is not so stupid as to risk offending one of the leading CEO's of Silicon Valley. Had McCain decided to "bully" Tim Cook into showing up, that would have been enough to unite all the Tech CEO's against the Republicans.

That's a lot of lobbying money and campaign contributions that would have walked out the door, right there.

The GOP would never have let McCain be so stupid.

8
3
Headmaster

Re: Theatre. Nothing more.

Maybe I'm wrong about how USA works, but was just an invitation. Not to dismiss -from the Committee on Armed Services. Leaving aside remarks on Personae.

Tim could have arrived with his own advising Team.

1
2
Silver badge

Re: Theatre. Nothing more.

McCain si proving that Congress critters of all strips are so stupid they can not grasp that 1 + 1 = 2. Of course the committee can subpoena Cook. But it would show to anyone with more brains than a Congress critter that this is nothing but theater to "prove" encryption is bad because the doughnut eaters are too lazy to do real gumshoe work.

10
2

Re: Theatre. Nothing more.

@ Sproggit

"The GOP would never have let McCain be so stupid."

Two words for you to ponder.

Sarah Palin

26
0
Silver badge

Re: Theatre. Nothing more.

"The GOP would never have let McCain be so stupid."

Are we talking about the same GOP that is about to field Donald Trump?

23
0
Silver badge

Re: Are we talking about the same GOP that is about to field Donald Trump?

That's not stupidity, that's bowing to public opinion. They'd be stupid not to pick the most popular candidate, however mental he may be.

0
1
Silver badge

They have subpoena powers

That means they can compel Tim cook to attend. If they do, can he can bring his Apple legal team to represent him and tie them all up in procedural tape?

6
1

Re: They have subpoena powers

They can compel him to attend but given that he's turned up, is there anything else they can compel him to do? I don't know if they do stuff under oath, but if not, he could respond to everything with a quote from Shakespeare or similar.

I don't know what happens if one refuses to take oath, presumably there's a clause about contempt to cover that.

4
1
Silver badge

Re: They have subpoena powers

I would think Apple's lawyers could fight it on the grounds that Apple products are just one of dozens of ways that terrorists could potentially use to communicate via secure encryption. Are they going to also subpoena CEOs from Google, Facebook, Microsoft and other US tech companies? And just ignore the apps written outside the US that allow the same thing?

I guess I don't know the limits of the subpeona power of Congress, but just forcing people to show up and answer questions if they aren't doing what you think they should is unreasonable power IMHO. Apple isn't alleged to be doing anything illegal, if they craft a law I doubt they are going to take Cook's input into account anyway so why should they be able to compel him to show up?

10
0

Re: They have subpoena powers

Well, the probably would swear him in, to tell the truth, the whole truth, etc.

Should he choose not to answer or give nonsense answers they could probably find him in contempt of Congress; jail time might be an effective incentive, fines probably not so much.

But IANAL, so these are just guesses on my part.

4
0
Silver badge
Pint

Re: They have subpoena powers

'Respectfūlly plead the 5th'

Over and over again.

Then, after leaving, immediately issue a huge, highly detailed press release laying out one's position in one's own words with pesky interruptions. Committee loses, one wins.

Subpoena powers are toothless.

2
1
Silver badge
Pint

Re: They have subpoena powers

"...forcing people to show up..." Yes.

"...and answer questions..." Nope. No such power.

Anyone may 'respectfully plead the 5th'. Over and over again.

Then issue a huge press release on one's own terms. One's own words. No rude interruptions.

For the win.

2
2
Anonymous Coward

Re: They have subpoena powers

The 5th only protects you if the evidence would incriminate yourself in a crime.

There is also spousal privilege that prevents you from being forced to testify against your spouse.

Neither of those would apply in this situation so failing to answer would be contempt.

4
0
Silver badge

Re: They have subpoena powers

"I'm sorry Senator, I have no recollection of that event." - Ronald Regan

4
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: They have subpoena powers

They wouldn't be asking him about past events.

He doesn't recall how encryption currently works on Apple devices? Apple's CEO?

0
0
Mushroom

Dear Senator McCain

You have a demagogical, narcissist, egomaniac who is the presumptive nominee from your political party for the position of chief executive of the country currently equipped with the largest nuclear weapons stockpile. Please reprioritize your agenda. When you have addressed this issue as well as several others, Mr. Cook might be persuaded to sit still while you belittle him. In the meantime, he and the rest of the world have better things to do.

Thank you for your time.

PS - Congressional hearings were once used so members could learn about a variety of topics from a variety of viewpoints. I suggest exercising some leadership on the subject and trying to return to form rather than continuing to use them as public witch burnings.

Icon selected as to how said presumptive nominee tends to state he will address most issues relating to foreign policy.

37
2
Silver badge

Re: Dear Senator McCain

I take it you don't like Trump and prefer Clinton who should be in jail.

11
31
FAIL

Re: Dear Senator McCain

Given the choice between the unstable egomaniacal demagogue and the corrupt politician, I am reluctantly backing the historical trend. We know what the corrupt politicians can and will do. Unstable egomaniacs are by definition a wild card. Wild cards equipped with nuclear weapons make me very nervous. See the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. The major difference is the rockets in Montana and North Dakota have been proven to work. In any event, I am not eligible to weigh in on the former colonies elections.

37
5
Silver badge

Re: Dear Senator McCain

Pretty sure if Trump had been investigated to the level Clinton has for the last 25 years they would find plenty of reasons to jail him as well. Or do you really believe that all his bankrupt ventures didn't do anything illegal? I guess you are fine with a candidate who won't show his tax returns? Obviously he has something to hide, the only question is how big of a bombshell it would be if revealed.

42
6

Re: Clinton who should be in jail.

Yes... let's put someone in jail for ... and get this ... where their e-mail was stored.

That's how f*****g republicans roll. Petty 'til their very last breath.

No laws were broken but does that matter? Hell no. We're republicans.

Logic and the truth count for absolutely nothing.

26
12
Anonymous Coward

Re: Clinton who should be in jail.

Funny how the Republicans seem to have forgotten:

1) Nixon

2) Ford pardoning Nixon, technically not breaking any laws, but morally bankrupt never the less.

3) Reagan and Iran-Contragate.

4) Cheney, just being Cheney. Another moral bankruptcy. And a slimy git.

5) Shrub lying about WMDs in Iraq.

Those who forget history, yada, yada, yada

48
4

Re: Clinton who should be in jail.

GWB42.com.... a private email server that members of the government used to communicate about government business, and from which records were "lost".

12
1
Silver badge

Re: Clinton who should be in jail.

US law on protecting classified information is very clear. If you know any classified information it is your personal responsibility to protect the information. Setting up an insecure email server in your closet is not protecting the information thus by law a very serious feral felony. There is not wiggle room for intent. If you have ever held or smelled a US security clearance this is drilled into your head from day one. And this is a lifetime responsibility. Thus, many over here, particularly those who know the law, are angry that Hildafelon is not wearing an orange jumpsuit especially designed for Club Fed residents. Voting for Trump for many then becomes not an endorsement of Trump but an attempt to keep Hildafelon out.

The current choice between Blowhard and Hildafelon is between bad and disaster.

9
14
Gold badge
Unhappy

6) Cheyney getting a staffer to award a sole source cost plus contract to Haliburton for Iraq

For support services, IE running laundry and canteens.

Said staffer goes to work for Haliburton later.

7
0
Silver badge

Re: Clinton who should be in jail.

Your second sentence

"If you know any classified information it is your personal responsibility to protect the information."

Is true, thus it is the responsibility of the SENDER of the email to only send it to secured mail servers, over a secured network, and using encryption at the time.

Unfortunately, the State Department HAD no "secure" mail servers, no secure network, no encryption (to my knowledge).

The State Department had been penetrated for quite some time, and from what I remember, it was reported that IT department couldn't be sure when they could actually HAVE secured mail servers (happens when you use an operating system known for its lack of security).

And as it turns out, it appears that Clintons mail server was more secure.

9
1
Anonymous Coward

Re: Dear Senator McCain

Ivan 4 "I take it you don't like Trump, who should be in an asylum, and prefer Clinton, who should be in jail."

TIFIFY.

7
1
Silver badge

Re: Clinton who should be in jail.

The State Department, like numerous other agencies, has, and had, a secure network. These networks have no connection to the public internet or to the non-classified state.gov network. They may be located in secure areas (some classified material requires it). Due to their nature, these systems cannot be used for ordinary email, although it is possible they have email amongst themselves and to/from the governments Secure IP Routing Network. Hillary Clinton declined to use these facilities, and instead elected to have, and use for all her official State Department email, a personal off-premise server with RDP and VNC exposed on the public internet.

The compromise of the State Department non-secure network appears to have occurred well after Secretary Clinton's tenure, although that certainly does not eliminate the possibility it was compromised earlier as well. The State Department's Information Resource Management division may have been somewhat broken, but probably did not allow remote administration via the public internet, as Ms. Clinton's servers did.

3
0

Re: Dear Senator McCain

From one of the Canadian Perspectives (me), Hillary Clinton is by far a better leader than Trump.

Trump is a loner, he doesn't lead or develop careers. I imagine that he will do the same nepotism for the country as he did for his kids.

We may call HC a lier, but her lies were based on memory recall -- Just look at your hero "Donald exaggerating insulting Trump" He nicknamed every opponent. I would take crazy Bernie, or Lier Hillory any day. I will always take someone who talks with body language, than with Trump and his hands. Watch whatever clip of Narcissistic insulting Trump. He distracts you with his obsessive hand waving. If he makes it to President, what's he going to do, "Wave his hands at all problems that a President will encounter".

As an onlooker, I felt that young Rubio would do a substantially better job than Trump. Sadly, I will miss Obama.

Just realize the danger of a Republican Congress followed by a Republican Senate, followed by a Republican Majority of Judges in the Supreme court followed by a Republican President. Are the senior generals in the Army Republicans?

It is a great opportunity for anarchy.

3
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: Clinton who should be in jail.

@ a_yank_lurker

So what... a serious feral felony as opposed to what...a tame one?

4
0

Re: Dear Senator McCain

the only question is how big of a bombshell it would be if revealed.

it would be yoooge!

1
0
Silver badge

Trump and nepotism

Given how big of a presence his kids have in his campaign I'm sure he'd give them big roles in his administration. Maybe official, maybe not.

I'm sure the same republicans who were constantly outraged at how much involvement Hillary had in Bill Clinton's administration would have no problem with it, and the same democrats who had no problem with Hillary's involvement in her husband's administration would be outraged at the involvement Trump's kids have.

Because, unfortunately, neither side cares what is right, or only whether "their side" or "the other side" is doing it. Witness all the republicans who overlooked Bush and the RNC "losing" 5 million+ emails that were being stored on an RNC server instead of a US government server to avoid records retention laws, but are now outraged about Clinton doing the same thing (no doubt hoping to avoid those records retention laws herself, since she knew she was going to run again and knew the republican congress would be going after her) And of course the democrats who were outraged over Bush's use of the RNC email server have been falling all over themselves to defend Clinton for it.

4
0
JLV
Silver badge

Re: Dear Senator McCain

>jail

Methink you should look up Trump University. Might be Clintons are sleazy at times, but Trump is a 21st century used car salesman as far as I am concerned. And Trump being anti-elite? Positively Orwellian in hypocrisy.

Too bad for Reps. It sucks that Dems are likely to win again because... well democracies benefit from alternating parties being in power. But as long as Rep primaries choose candidates w ever more right, ever more white, religious, ever more old views, then thats going to make winning real hard in actual full population elections.

Especially in an US that is turning less white. Trump was not the worst of those to choose from, which is scary.

Nearly old, white, centrist, male, happy not to be living there.

3
1
Silver badge
Happy

Re: Clinton who should be in jail.

"feral felony."

I like it. Upvoted.

2
0
Silver badge
Alert

Perhaps if it wasn't just a witch hunt...

If an equal number of "pro encryption" folks were invited instead of just Mr. Cook, apparently just to waste his time being lambasted, maybe he would have accepted the invitation. Reps from Google and Microsoft for example could have been invited as well. Or perhaps someone from the EFF. At least it would be a little better balanced then.

5
0
Silver badge

@JLV "democracies benefit from alternating parties being in power"

While I agree, I think we have a chance to witness something more. If Trump loses in a landslide as many are predicting, despite republicans getting democratic opponent with a lot of dislike and distrust against her, the republican party could truly fracture and in a few years no longer exist as we know it.

Now democrats might think that would be great, because then they'd win every election, but if the republican party broke into several smaller factions the democratic party would quickly follow because the various factions within the democrats would want their agenda moved to the front of the line. This campaign demonstrated there's a pretty big split in the democrats between the progressive "true liberal" wing that followed Sanders banner, and the neocon lite wing led by Obama and Hillary - i.e. the democrat "establishment" that is hard to distinguish from the republican establishment led by Bush, Bush Jr and Bush with the exclamation point.

The two party system is too entrenched in the way US election and campaign laws are set up for so many factions to last, so they would reassemble - but they might reassemble in some interesting ways. We might end up with two parties that are mainly distinguished by how they view foreign policy, rather than the current state where they are mainly distinguished by how they view social issues. One a mixing of the Bush/Clinton interventionists who think using our military to remake the world as "safe for democracy" is a good thing, and the other a combination of Sanders/Trump isolationists who think the US military should defend our borders, but stay out of conflicts that not ours. The religious conservatives would be left out in the cold with only minor third parties able to speak for them, similar to how the isolationists are today left out in the cold with only the libertarians able to speak for them.

This may be a lot bigger than the shift that occurred 50 years ago, when LBJ getting behind the Civil Rights Act caused many southern democrats to abandon the party for the republicans (yes, ironic that the party of Lincoln became the new home for the racists, after a century of the democrats having them) It was right around that same time that Phyllis Schlafy starting pushing the republican party platform towards social conservatism, which finally bore fruit with the nomination of Reagan in 1980. Before that most people felt that religion and politics shouldn't mix, and the nomination of Trump is reportedly causing a lot of social conservatives to give up on the party and politics in general so we may see that attitude return.

4
0

Page:

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Forums

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2018