Where Do the Presidential Candidates Stand On Encryption? (windowsitpro.com) 212
v3rgEz writes: In a divided election year, encryption brings parties together — against technology. That's the sobering finding based on transcripts from the remaining presidential candidates, all of whom came out against cryptography and for government backdoors to varying degrees. It's a testament to the post-Snowden era (and Apple's fight against a court order to backdoor an iPhone) that every candidate has been asked about the issue multiple times, but only one candidate even acknowledged that backdoors cause great security concerns for the public.
how would we know? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
They have a lot to hide, so they have to encrypt the campaign with the Fluffy Kitten/Kissing Baby cipher.
Better question (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Better question (Score:5, Insightful)
Do the presidential candidates know what encryption is and how technology commonly uses it?
Some of them just dodged the question. I like the way Cruz answered, even if I don't fully agree: Apple has a point in not wanting to do this wholesale, but law enforcement has an actual warrant, and that how the Fourth Amendment is supposed to work.
Anything that prevents wholesale warrantless data gathering is good IMO, but with a warrant, and not some BS secret warrant from a secret court but a legitimate warrant? There's not a Fourth Amendment case to be made here. Forcing someone to decrypt their own shit violates the Fifth, irredeemably so IMO, but that not this.
I hope Apple wins because of slippery slopes, not the specific details of this case.
Re:Better question (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't know how much you know about warrants and the Fourth Amendment, but they can't compel anyone to actually work for the government. Apple is being told that the warrant requires them to develop software on the government's behalf.
The Fourth Amendment is about search and seizure. The warrant in question doesn't apply to either. The government can't force you to search my house for evidence, for example.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly this. It's not like Apple has a "magic decryption key" lying around that they could use to unlock the phone. The hardware/software was designed purposefully so that they COULDN'T decrypt it. The government wants Apple to write a software update that will take away
Re: (Score:3)
Not today...
Well probably today...
Do you believe that once they have the software to circumvent protections they will use it only when absolutely necessary? No, this is going to be freely available to everyone in law enforcement, their husbands/wives, friends and well some random torrent server. It will make passwords and protection a moot point overnight. Rightly destroying any credibility they have built.
This is just a bunch of hoopla to force them to write software for them. There isn't going to be anyth
Re: (Score:2)
Do you believe that once they have the software to circumvent protections they will use it only when absolutely necessary? No, this is going to be freely available to everyone in law enforcement, their husbands/wives, friends and well some random torrent server. It will make passwords and protection a moot point overnight. Rightly destroying any credibility they have built.
The FBI already knows how to decrypt this phone (and there's not likely anything of value in it), they just want Apple to do it to build the path towards a mandatory backdoor. The 5c wasn't designed with much security. But then, I don't trust major corporations with any sort of security in the first place. Seems a bit silly, to me.
Apple should just lock up the usb firmware update process on the next piece of hardware
It's locked on the last piece of hardware, for that matter. Apple at least seems to be trying, though rolling their own secure environment just sounds like a bad plan.
Re:Better question (Score:4, Insightful)
No, they are not asking just for this one phone. That is what they claim, but once Apple is pushed to the breaking point and gives in there is nothing to stop the government from coming back and asking "ok, just one more, we have precedent now that we know you can do it". There is ample historical evidence that the government will break treaties when it suits them despite having the full force of law, and even the mafia has a stronger code of conduct than the US government.
Besides the government doesn't need what's on that phone. It's not important. They know who the killers are. They're just hoping to find more leads on other crimes, a pure fishing expedition. Which means the next time there's a locked phone that actually has useful information to solve an existing crime it will be more important than this case and they'll use that as justification to ask Apple a second time, and a third time, and so on.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, what they are specifically asking for is for Apple to create a software patch that will remove the "10 PIN tries and the phone is wiped" security restriction. This way, the government would be able to brute force their way into the device.
The problem is that it's not "just this phone." Once the government has this patch, do you really think they won't use it on other phones? Do you think other governments won't demand access? Do you think it won't leak to random hacker groups?
If Apple were to
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You do realize that "backdoors" have nothing to do with the current phone unlock case, though, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Warrants are not all powerful though. And this one was granted under a somewhat dubious legal theory, in that if congress has not explicitly created laws covering the situation that the courts can make a writ. Which was probably important in the early days of the republic but it's a bit of a stretch to think that congress has not already dealt with the issue of privacy, searches, evidence discovery, the limits of law enforcement, and so forth. It seems unlikely to be upheld as it gets to higher courts.
And
Re: (Score:2)
... an actual warrant, and that how the Fourth Amendment ...
We keep getting into these discussions about encryption, privacy and so on, and that is right and good, but I feel we are just walking in circles. I think, when we are down to quoting constitution and sacred principles of human rights, and it still doesn't settle the discussion, we are not going to get there, unless we are willing to think out of the box. IOW, think about how we can find compromises.
The thing is that both sides have very good, valid points. The right to privacy and freedom from surveillanc
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't a new 'problem', as the government would have us believe. There is no sudden urgency, save that on the part of the FBI.
True - but it is still a problem, one way or the other, and we clearly haven't been able to solve it yet. And we never will, unless we are willing to give a little on all sides.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Apple will "lose" if the device doesn't withstand attack with their help. Then we'll know that their security, ho
Re: (Score:2)
What exactly can a warrant do? Can a warrant compel me to write software to break into your computer?
Re: (Score:2)
The court can compel you to do many things, sadly. But if state compels a 3rd party to search you, that's still the state searching you, and they still need a warrant.
Re: Better question (Score:2)
I think Apple is right, because this is just the beginning. But what they actually want is a software to circumvent the wiping after 10 tries and the delay between the tries.
They are not yet asking to circumvent the encryption. If the guy used a strong password, the spooks will still have no access.
But of course there is evidence that the government just waits for the next attack to finally get the real backdoor in every device.
We are not banning encryption, we are banning end-to-end encryption as long as t
Re: (Score:3)
They think encryption is what happens after you die.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
So what? Americans vote based on how the candidates look anyway.
Re: (Score:3)
So what? Americans vote based on how the candidates look anyway.
Yes, which is why Bernie Sanders massively lost all the Democratic primaries so far. I mean, who would vote for someone who looks like that?
Re: (Score:3)
I mean, who would vote for someone who looks like that?
Re:how would we know? (Score:4, Funny)
So what? Americans vote based on how the candidates look anyway.
Good, I can relax now. I was worried that Donald Trump was going to get elected there for a minute.
Unless he somehow finds a better looking toupee before November we're all safe.
Re: (Score:2)
As far as looks go, Trump is sort of a toss-up versus Hillary or Sanders. Expect low turnout. Trump has more TV experience. That might help him.
Which cranky aging white person should it be? I hope we can avoid making that choice.
Re: (Score:2)
how would we know?
It's a function of how popular they think the opinion is, and whether they've been elected yet.
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, it's pretty simple. If it's them seeing our secrets, it's fine. If it's us seeing theirs, it's not. No matter who you vote for.
Re: (Score:2)
they're indecipherable
Bruce Schneier could decipher them. In his sleep.
#BruceSchneierFacts
Nice try (Score:5, Funny)
The summery has three links to the exact same article. Well, keep trying, I'm still not gonna RTFA.
Re: (Score:2)
Can Slashdot help me decrypt the stealth bar?
Where do they side? (Score:5, Informative)
With the government. Maybe except Bernie, I'd guess. This is a surprise? They are the government.
(...reads TFA...)
In fact, only one candidate, Marco Rubio, seemed to allow for any nuance on the issue.
Holy shit... really?
Rubio:
Here's the thing though, if you require by law – if we passed a law that required Apple and these companies to create a backdoor, number one, criminals could figure that out and use it against you. And number two, there's already encrypted software that exists, not only now but in the future created in other countries. We would not be able to stop that.
If you create a backdoor, there is a very reasonable possibility that a criminal gang could figure out what the backdoor is. That possibility is – if you create a backdoor, you're creating a vulnerability. And what you're not going to chance is the fact that other companies around the world who are not subject to U.S. laws – they could create encryption technology that we'll never be able to get access to.
Wow... someone has an actual technology adviser worth a damn on his staff.
Re: (Score:2)
In fact, only one candidate, Marco Rubio, seemed to allow for any nuance on the issue.
Holy shit... really?
I know right?
Out of all the response he seemed to capture the complexity of the issue the best. It's a shame he doesn't apply the same tact with other issues.
Re: (Score:2)
Proof that Rubio is politically naive and not following the direction that the mob is going.
Re: (Score:2)
Speaking for myself, I am tired of politically savvy candidates.
Re: (Score:2)
What? Try reading it again. He's right there with his own quotes. He first goes off on a completely irrelevant (if true) tangent about how much personal data all the evil corporations have on you, and then reverts to nonsensical and vague platitude that sound just like every other candidate when pressed on the issue.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
No, they are right there with two utterly unrelated quotes that have nothing at all to do with the issue. It's almost like they don't think he's a real candidate so they put up a quote that's meaningless and unrelated intentionally. I wonder why.
His position on government snooping is well known. He's one of the few that voted against the Patriot Act, not just the first time but No for both re-authorizations as well. In fact as far as I know he's the only one in congress that did that. So to reflect this rec
We have no idea (Score:5, Interesting)
Most if not all presidential candidates who make it this far in the race will say whatever they thing will get them elected.
Perhaps I'm just unskilled at it, but I'm unable to predict what any President will actually do in office, based on his/her stated positions leading up to the election.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm unable to predict what any President will actually do in office, based on his/her stated positions leading up to the election.
I usually try to find out where the majority of their campaign cash comes from, that will give you some clue as to what their policies really are. What they say they'll do and what they'll actually do are not usually very similar.
Re: (Score:2)
You're not the only one. Its the same way every election. Better choices would be nice but when it gets down to it we only get two choices one who claims he will do xyz or another who claims he will do wyz and then the one that gets elected does wtfomgbbq and if we're lucky we don't end up in another war or with more crippled appliances that don't function the way they should.
Re: (Score:2)
Every new President has to deal with the prior President's policies before they can start creating their own and some policies cannot be easily abandoned. Trump actually stated early in his campaign that he could not lay out the details on how he would handle certain policy issues because until you actually assume office you really do not know what you are up against. Presidential candidates talk like they are running for Emperor instead of a President with limited power.
Reads like a total NSA/PRISM failure (Score:5, Interesting)
The comments of those candidates show a total failure of all the intrusions by NSA with their PRISM project. Supposedly the NSA recorded all meta-data (who talks to who), yet the main argument of the presidential candidates on having back doors is not "what were they talking about" but "who were they talking to" - exactly the kind of information that PRISM was supposedly recording.
Several candidates mention this specifically. Who were they talking to? Who knew about this? What were the contacts of these criminals? What was their network? All these questions the NSA is supposed to be able to answer, if Snowden's revelations are anything to go by. Now I don't doubt Snowden's claims at all, so this all points to a terrible failure of the NSA of doing anything with the massive amount of information on phone calls and e-mail traffic they recorded.
Of course finding out about crimes or terrorist type attacks in the planning stage based on this kind of data may be incredibly hard; figuring out who these people had contact with after the fact should be much easier as at least they now have a very clear starting point.
So if there's one thing these pro-back door arguments point at, it's an epic failure of law enforcement. Not only did these agencies totally overstep their legal and moral boundaries, they did nothing to prevent this attack, and can not even provide any help or information after the fact. Maybe they should go back to good old policing: keeping personal contacts with the neighbourhoods, keeping good relations with the people, and actually get useful information directly out of the community the old fashioned way. It'll make lots of people a lot happier (if only because of the increased local security and social situation).
Re: (Score:2)
The contractors then give back to the congress critters that ensure funding flows to select projects and keeps jobs in their states.
Everyone is winning with ever more funding for expensive domestic signals intelligence collection every decade.
What can any candidate do in a two party race? Close down 100 or
only one? (Score:5, Insightful)
If you read the article, both Rubio and Cruz "acknowledged that backdoors cause great security concerns". That's two.
Cruz:
Rubio:
Do people make really obvious mistakes in these summaries on purpose? Are you trolling us?
Re:only one? (Score:5, Insightful)
And then you keep reading Cruz's opinion and you get to the part "But, I think law enforcement has the better argument...."
One might say "I think pro life people have a really good argument, but I think the pro choice people have a better argument", and it would be easy to quote the "I think pro life people have a good argument" part to make them seem pro life. But it's not really fair to call them pro life, nor is it fair to even say they are both pro life and pro choice (i.e. because they like the arguments from both sides).
Re:only one? (Score:5, Informative)
Nevertheless, the statement "only one candidate even acknowledged that backdoors cause great security concerns for the public" is false.
Re: (Score:2)
"I think that Apple and probably a lot of other people don't necessarily trust the government these days. There is probably a very good reason for people not to trust the government" --Ben Carson
And if not from this specific article that collected these specific quotes, I'll bet you can find statements from nearly every candi
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect that the NSA and the FBI already have the dirt on the field of candidates. Whichever one is going to win, they will be pointed in the correct direction and be on the side of the NSA and FBI at the end of the campaign.
The cynic in me suspects the ghost of J. Edgar Hoover is still alive and well in Washington. I'm not sure the CIA dirty tricks squads died with Watergate either. With all the information the NSA collects, the dirty tricks squads could be alive and well ...
Re: (Score:2)
If they had any dirt on Bernie Sanders, I'm thinking they would have used it on him sometime before this. I mean, the guy's been in public life for longer than a lot of NSA and FBI agents have been alive.
Still voting for Bernie (Score:4, Interesting)
I agree that Rubio seems to have the best stance of the current field, but that's not saying much. Honestly I don't think any of them (except *maybe* Rubio) even understand how encryption works. I would hope that any of these candidates, should they become president, would put more effort into gaining a better understanding of encryption before making any consequential decisions. I think one can be excused for not having a good answer for a question about a complicated technology especially in a debate format where answers need to be in 30 second sound bytes.
I think if phrased in the language of "We don't put bad mathematics in American textbooks to hedge against terrorists that might read it", we could maybe help the American people and politicians understand what they are dealing with.
As tragic as the deaths from terrorism are, it's not clear that making all our encryption insecure via backdoors will be a good trade off for some if any reduction in terrorism. There is a very real possibility that we would be causing more deaths and other harm from preventable security breaches.
Even if some new advancement in cryptography allowed us to have vastly more secure backdoors, (after all the Turing Awards were handed out) it would still not be clear that we *should* give this power to the government, given their history of abuse of their powers and oversight evasion.
I don't expect every politician to be an expert on every subject, especially encryption. This is where I think character and integrity plays a big role for me.
I wouldn't say that I trust Marco Rubio to stick to any position if the circumstances changed, and I can't say that I trust his judgement in general. But kudos to him for having the best answer at least currently.
Re:Still voting for Bernie (Score:4, Insightful)
...make sure that information being transmitted... by ISIS is, in fact, discovered. But I do believe we can do that without violating the constitutional and privacy rights of the American people.
-- nothing about prohibiting or weakening encryption. Rubio, last phrase:
We're going to... figure out a way forward on encryption that allows us some capability to access information
i.e. even with complete understanding of the subject he is still advocating for a backdoor.
Re: (Score:3)
I think both those statements are about equivalent in terms of not specifically prohibiting or weakening encryption through back doors, yet also implying a backdoor to anyone knowledgeable on the subject of encryption.
As a Bernie supporter, I can say that I am convinced that Rubio has a better and more educated stance on encryption by this article. That doesn't mean I don't think Bernie can't be educated (as Rubio clearly has been).
As for most issues, I think character and integrity matters. It is importa
Re: (Score:2)
Honestly I don't think any of them (except *maybe* Rubio) even understand how encryption works.
Of course Rubio understands encryption. He's a robot!!!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You state "Still voting for Bernie" as your subject and then go on to write an essay that has nothing to do with that argument (see non sequitur.) Nothing about my response is about the credibility of Bernie or Trump. It is about the credibility of their supporters who regularly employ fallacies in the promotion of their preferred candidate. You then reply with an ad hominem when a comment comes pointing out that blind faith is troubling regardless of who is doing it. Support whoever you want, but please, u
Re: (Score:2)
You state "Still voting for Bernie" as your subject and then go on to write an essay that has nothing to do with that argument (see non sequitur.)
I am unaware of any rule that states that your subject must encapsulate your entire post. In order for something to be a non-sequitur there must be an implicit or explicit sequitur.
Nothing about my response is about the credibility of Bernie or Trump. It is about the credibility of their supporters who regularly employ fallacies in the promotion of their preferred candidate.
I don't think you are doing a good job of logical fallacy assessment.
You then reply with an ad hominem when a comment comes pointing out that blind faith is troubling regardless of who is doing it.
An ad hominem attack is not simply saying something negative about a person. An ad hominem attack is when your argument is based in discrediting the person rather than a the idea itself. (e.g. building a big wall is a bad idea because it is what Trump wants t
An even more alarming trend. (Score:4, Interesting)
Reading those is genuinely scary. And there's something even more alarming than the nitwitted stand on encryption itself. Nearly all the candidates talk about how they will "make Apple do this" or "have Silicon Valley do that". Their opinions that they should have the power to conscript anyone they damn well please into doing their dirty work for them is the genuinely offensive and frightening. The abuses of the NSA are bad enough. But at least that was an entirely government operation. Forcing uninvolved third parties to unwillingly aid them on spying on the citizens... that's some seriously east-German Stasi level thuggery.
Re: (Score:2)
Reading those is genuinely scary.
Only if you aren't very good at reading.
Nearly all the candidates talk about how they will "make Apple do this" or "have Silicon Valley do that".
Strange I didn't read it that way.
Carson: "I believe what we need is a public private partnership when it comes to all of these technical things"
Clinton: "there could be a Manhattan-like project, something that would bring the government and the tech communities together"
Rubio: "So I think we're either going to have a figure a way forward by working with Silicon Valley"
Sanders: "So yes, we have to work with Silicon Valley"
Trump : "Apple should absolutely -- we sh
Re: (Score:2)
None of them understand the issue (Score:2)
None of them understand the issue. Some of them are more easily bribed than others. And some them have stronger bribery relationships with some companies.
spam links (Score:2)
Four links in the lead para. All identical, all to "WindowsIT.pro".
Show some restraint in shoving your brand down our throats.
One link is informative. Two is over--enthusiastic. FOUR IS SPAM.
Excuse me: Gary Johnson is running. (Score:2, Informative)
And he is against all back doors.
why unlock endpoint when you have the data stream? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They're just trying to capitalize on a crisis to strong-arm Apple into obedience. The shooters are already dead.
We know where Clinton stands - with Gore (Score:5, Informative)
There's at least one candidate - Clinton - whose views on encryption have already be backed by action, namely her and Bill's friend Al "Clipper Chip" Gore and support for the Clipper Chip [eff.org] itself.
Notable that the FBI is trying to make a government mandated backdoor happen again...
If I told you, then I'd have to kill you (Score:2)
No way to actually know. They won't tell us, and even if they got caught lying about it, then they would just point at some obscure law that required them to lie about it.
Going on the personalities, I believe that Bernie Sanders has the right philosophy on that issue, as on so many others. Most of the other candidates are corporatist tools who will do and say whatever the big companies want them to do and say. A couple of them are dangerous authoritarian lunatics, and it's just a matter of degree. I would s
Washington wants a bite of the Apple (Score:3)
Apple's not been spending enough of it's huge pile of cash on "lobbying" or "campaign funds". If that's what you want to call it.
Those who would like a bite of that juicy fruit are trying to shake them down with all this "backdoor" bullshit.
I can't seriously believe America is run by morons who think forcing it's tech companies into breaking their products is not going to affect international sales.
Ask Cisco...
Incomplete sampling (Score:5, Informative)
"That's the sobering finding based on transcripts from the remaining presidential candidates, all of whom came out against cryptography"
I call BS! Find a Libertarian candidate who supports this...oh you meant one of the media authorized duopoly? Then, of course; there is no difference between them.
Gary Johnson 2016!
If the "backdoor" is really really needed... (Score:2)
First it should be a "front door". Something that everyone knows its there, rather than a secret weaselish thing.
Secondly, it must be something that not only requires possessing the actual device, but also cracking it open to access some internal header pin where you plug this "magical device" that can extract the phone password from an otherwise write only memory that can't be read by the phone itself even if you reset/voltage/clock glitch it.
And finally, this "magical device" must be really secure and una
duh (Score:2)
"In a divided election year, encryption brings parties together — against technology."
Because the populace is oh so ter-terr-terrified of ter-terr-terrorists that there are shit tons of votes to be had by a politician who is for anything that can be marketed as being 'Against Terrorism' (tm).
Most Americans don't stop listening to MSM long enough to actually consider that the actual threat from terrorism is effectively zero.
Ask about Crypto, you get coded answers (Score:2)
Sorry folks, but the right to privately encrypt is political "flyover country". You are hard pressed to find a candidate willing to make a deliberate and informed statement about it, and even then, don't be surprised if you get screwed over. No pitchfork mob will rise up with you to redress your grievance. Bill Clinton seemed reasonable until he and his NSA inspired hatchet-men Al Gore and Louis Freeh rolled out the Clipper Chip abomination [wikipedia.org] . It was like lightning from a clear sky. A clear example of the
summary (Score:3)
I suppose it's better than the last guy, who made strong promises before the election and then did a shifty-eyed retreat when he had become president: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Just Combine the iPhone with a Gun (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
why stop at phones? (Score:2)
Let's make a law where the police have the master key to all locks on your house and your car. Because terrorists.
Summary (Score:2)
brings parties together — against technology
Encryption isn't all technology, if I may be so pedantic. And quite a bit of technology is involved in breaking or modifying encryption.
But agreed, backdoors are dangerous, bad ideas.
Re: (Score:2)
TFA doesn't paint a good picture of Sanders on this issue.
Re: (Score:2)
But they can't have it both ways, so... what next? (Score:2)
In reality we know they can't have it both ways no matter how much they legislate, because neither maths nor inanimate objects care about the whims of politicians or lawmakers. I wonder how much the candidates truly understand this as they say these things: are they aware that what they are saying is not and can not ever be realistic and just playing to the crowd on the campaign trail, or are they still too ignorant of this area to realise?
To me, as someone outside the US with no particular axe to grind in
Re: (Score:2)
To top it off, we already know who the killers are - they're dead. Breaking into the phone because it "might" in some alternate universe have vital information that isn't already obtainable elsewhere, and using this as the argument for imposing laws on encryption, is not just over-reach - its stupid on it's face.
What sort of incentives would other countries be willing to give to have Apple relocate?
Re:Feel the bern! (Score:4, Informative)
from TFA:
Bernie Sanders
From the fourth Democratic debate:
Sanders: You would all be amazed, or maybe not, about the amount of information private companies and the government has in terms of the Web sites that you access, the products that you buy, where you are this very moment.
Sanders: And it is very clear to me that public policy has not caught up with the explosion of technology. So yes, we have to work with Silicon Valley to make sure that we do not allow ISIS to transmit information...
Moderator: But in terms of lone wolves, the threat, how would you do it?
Sanders: Right. What we have got to do there is, among other things, as I was just saying, have Silicon Valley help us to make sure that information being transmitted through the Internet or in other ways by ISIS is, in fact, discovered. But I do believe we can do that without violating the constitutional and privacy rights of the American people.
Re: (Score:2)
What a horrible thing to say. The guy is obviously a monster and doesn't realize that violating the constitutional and privacy rights of the American people is a feature, not a bug.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
OMG, that's horrible! This is the USA and nobody wants no goddamn thoughtful discussion.
Re:Feel the bern! (Score:5, Informative)
You just happen to be a member of the crowd to which Bernie is playing. And, obviously, he is doing a good job of it.
Don't ever make the mistake of trusting him. Every action he takes that is not subject to public scrutiny will be a betrayal, as is true of every politician (that succeeds).
Nonsense. Sanders has had a remarkably open and public political career. He has answered questions from the public for an hour every Friday for years on the Thom Hartmann Show and his answers are reassuringly consistent and are backed up by his voting record. Plenty of Republicans in Vermont trust him because he does what he says he will. With regards to the surveillance state, Sander's has been outspoken in his opposition to pervasive data collection, voicing support for Edward Snowden's whistleblowing. Here's [thehill.com] and article comparing his stance on NSA spying to that of Secretary Clinton.
I have observed that Sanders has generally narrowed his message in his campaign rhetoric, and specifically seems to avoids nuances of electronic security and privacy during the debates.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
An interesting definition of socialism certainly "a bit less right wing than the other right wing party". One of the strange things about American politics is that the US has not had a left wing part for a long time, if ever. The UK is like that now (Corbyn aside) and it seems the way things are going.
Neil Kinnock, the former leader of the British Labour party told a story in an interview about an American woman you looked at him in astonishment and said "You can't be socialists, you're too nice".
A lot of t
Re: (Score:2)
Socialism has such a great track record. Of murdering people, not so much helping them.
Socialism, just like capitalism, comes in different flavors. If there's totalitarian socialism and democratic socialism, then you also state capitalism and crony capitalism of the Chinese, Russian and US varieties. Yes, I consider the US defense industry crony capitalism.
Re: (Score:2)
The key word here is seems. Deception is the primary skill for a politician. None succeed without it. You just happen to be a member of the crowd to which Bernie is playing. And, obviously, he is doing a good job of it.
Don't ever make the mistake of trusting him. Every action he takes that is not subject to public scrutiny will be a betrayal, as is true of every politician (that succeeds).
I do actually agree with you here and especially after '08 I can't ever trust a politician ever again. Yet when presented the option, I'd still rather vote for the guy saying the right things (but perhaps not doing them afterwards) rather than the guy who outright says the wrong thing from the get go. Now while I don't believe in the lesser of two evils strategy so I would normally advocate to vote independent but Bernie Sanders WAS an independent until right before the election.
Re: Feel the bern! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:You all had your chance and fucked it up (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They're standing on encryption, jumping up and down hoping it will crack.
Re: (Score:2)
Here is Obama on government surveillance: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com] Note how he turned from a forceful speaker before the election into a spineless buffoon after the election.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not saying Obama was perfect - he wasn't, and I knew that going in, he was just the best option we had at the time - but I will also say, it's pretty hard to get much "change" accomplished when the majority of the legislative branch is like, "we will veto literally ANYTHING you try to do, no matter what, just because we hate you personally and want to see you fail". It's impressive that he got *anything* accomplished given that backdrop, and that is totally a problem we'll still face even with someone a