Politicians To Silicon Valley: The Government Is Not Your Adversary

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
After all the recent scandals involving spying, bulk data collection and so on, I think it is hilarious that politicians would expect any cooperation from Silicon Valley.

"We need Silicon Valley not to view government as its adversary," Clinton said Thursday at a speech on national security at the Center on Foreign Relations in New York. "If you create a product that allows evil monsters to communicate in this way...that is a big problem," Feinstein said.
 
Given that it is the government which creates the regulatory environment within which business operates, it behooves business to work with government to create the best environment in which to operate. But that would be too easy to think about.
 
Clinton should be in federal prison.

She is the last fucking person on earth that has any business telling anyone about technology.

For fucks sake.
 
aardvark sandwich said:
Clinton should be in federal prison.

She is the last fucking person on earth that has any business telling anyone about technology.

For fucks sake.
Click to expand...

THIS.
The lady that ran a personal email server for the "convenience" of avoiding preying federal eyes is complaining that there are sililcon valley companies that create products that are designed to allow conversations without preying federal eyes.
 
"If you create a product that allows evil monsters to communicate in this way...that is a big problem,"
Click to expand...

Are they talking about terrorists or politicians because from where I'm sitting it's pretty hard to tell the difference. One aimlessly kills innocent people using dirty bombs and AK's and the other aimlessly kills innocent people using smart bombs and M4's...all in the name of what they consider "right".

I don't know...this shit is so backwards these days.
 
Modred189 said:
THIS.
The lady that ran a personal email server for the "convenience" of avoiding preying federal eyes is complaining that there are sililcon valley companies that create products that are designed to allow conversations without preying federal eyes.
Click to expand...

Silly peasant, these laws are only meant for the little guy like you.
The ruling class is too important to be bothered by stuff like this.
 
Steve said:
After all the recent scandals involving spying, bulk data collection and so on, I think it is hilarious that politicians would expect any cooperation from Silicon Valley.

"We need Silicon Valley not to view government as its adversary," Clinton said Thursday at a speech on national security at the Center on Foreign Relations in New York. "If you create a product that allows evil monsters to communicate in this way...that is a big problem," Feinstein said.
Click to expand...

"Evil Monsters" WHAT DOES THAT EVEN MEAN.

Go fuck yourself, Feinstein.
 
I was going to write something more, but my sentiments have already been covered pretty well.

All I have to say it.. Clinton and Feinstein are insane if they think we are going to believe either of them.
 
Yeah, damn you silicon valley for making technology that allows the armed forces and law enforcement to keep their communications away from the prying eyes of the 'monsters'... it's a two way street bitches.
 
aardvark sandwich said:
Clinton should be in federal prison.

She is the last fucking person on earth that has any business telling anyone about technology.

For fucks sake.
Click to expand...
"Did you wipe the server?"


"What, you mean with a cloth or something?"


*Before people start trying to call me out: I know she was being intentionally obtuse during that line of questioning...*
 
Well, like most of you, I think Hillery is a criminal and Feinstien an Idiot.

That being said, there is nothing wrong with this quote from the article.

"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," she said.
Click to expand...

Furthermore, I believe it's entirely possible, and it has nothing to do with people's stupid suggestions that you have to create back-doors, give away encryption keys, or any other bullshit.

As an example, when you send an email from your phone to a mail server, there is no reason that one set of keys can't be used on one end, and another set on the other end, and the data encrypted again while it's at rest and the service provider has the ability to retrieve data at rest when required. Under this type of model your transmissions to your service providers servers are protected, your data at rest is protected, and it's protected when it is sent to your intended recipients. But it can still be pulled under court order.

Just saying.
 
DPI said:
Ya think..


And here I thought a computer forum would be the one place I could escape the wingnuttery of partisan political bickering on the internet.
Click to expand...

Well, you've got Icpiper and myself. We disagree vehemently on a bunch of this stuff, but neither of us are exactly strangers to computers or encryption. And we seem to be in agreement here, at least in terms of the politicians.

I can assure you neither of us get our information about encryption from Fox News, we actually live it. Pull your head out of your ass.
 
If the government wants to decrypt something, let them do so on their own. If they were the slightest bit trustworthy, I might consider some of what they want to be in the best interest of the public. As it stands, the US government can't be trusted with my fricken grocery list as far as I am concerned.
 
http://www.engadget.com/2015/11/20/nsa-email-spying-disclosures/

The New York Times is reporting that the NSA developed a way to spy on our emails even after the program allowing it to do so was shut down. Until December 2011, the agency was entitled to bulk-collect emails at will because it was subject to oversight from the intelligence court. That meant that the data had to be used according to the regulations laid down by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The NSA, however, had a second, more secretive program, based overseas, that did a similar job, but was under no such legal restriction. As such, when its powers were curtailed, it simply went back to doing what it always did, but in a foreign country.

The paper secured this disclosure after going after the agency with a series of freedom of information act requests. The report explains that the NSA wasn't able to read the text of a message, but could identify the "social links" that were revealed by email patterns. The outfit was able to trawl so much domestic data because information is often shifted between servers in different countries. It's this free movement of information that troubled European lawmakers so much that they suspended Safe Harbor between Europe and the US.
 
Armenius said:
"Did you wipe the server?"


"What, you mean with a cloth or something?"


*Before people start trying to call me out: I know she was being intentionally obtuse during that line of questioning...*
Click to expand...

On top of being obtuse, she thought she was being funny because of the cackling thereafter, and then thought that she could deflect it as a meaningful way to answer the question.
 
Dirty Butler said:
The Fox News is strong in this thread
Click to expand...

What happened? Couldn't get the straight scoop from MSNBC, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNBC, The Guardian UK, Der Spiegel, Le Monde, et al. to be to have crafted your attempt at disparaging people with a different point of view than yours and then blaming it on a singular News Network that offers a different narrative than the one you get from a minimum of the networks I mentioned above?

It's amazing whenever I see the Fox News Much screed, that this one news network can garner so much irrational hatred. As if it were acid in the face of the other media outlets and you and others like you just go all AHHHHHH! about it.
 
Mut1ny said:
Are they talking about terrorists or politicians because from where I'm sitting it's pretty hard to tell the difference. One aimlessly kills innocent people using dirty bombs and AK's and the other aimlessly kills innocent people using smart bombs and M4's...all in the name of what they consider "right".

I don't know...this shit is so backwards these days.
Click to expand...

QFT
 
Most frightening words ever muttered, "You can trust us, we're the government. We're here to help."

Trust them with what, the privacy rights of future generations?

How does any current generation think it has the right to give away the privacy rights of all future generations? I've never heard of a more un-patriotic bunch of bullshit.
 
One other point, when you give away fundamental natural rights such as the right to privacy to a government administration you trust, do you think you can just get those rights back after they have been inherited by an administration that you don't like, don't trust, that doesn't like you, doesn't trust you? Liberty lost is never regained without bloodshed.
 
it's also not a right you can really delegate since it wasn't yours to begin with.
(the privacy of others, that is)
 
Modred189 said:
The lady that ran a personal email server for the "convenience"
Click to expand...
So did Bush.

Supposedly it was fairly common up until the last few years.

If you want to hate Clinton fine, there are plenty of reasons to do so, but this isn't one of them. And if you think it is then you should hate Bush, Christie, Walker, or Jeb a whole lot more over it if not equally since since they all berate Clinton over it but they themselves ran private email servers too. Virtually no one who gets worked up over this issue seems to ever say a peep about Bush's email shenanigans though for some reason.
 
Methadras said:
It's amazing whenever I see the Fox News Much screed, that this one news network can garner so much irrational hatred.
Click to expand...
They're one of the most popular networks but also lie, usually not directly but via omission of information and careful managing of the "optics", the most so of course you'll see them get a whole lot of hatred. Nothing irrational about it.
 
mesyn191 said:
They're one of the most popular networks but also lie, usually not directly but via omission of information and careful managing of the "optics", the most so of course you'll see them get a whole lot of hatred. Nothing irrational about it.
Click to expand...


That FOX News are liars, at the very least by omission, and are also guilty of twisting the facts, is true. That you think the others are not guilty of the same, to an equal or perhaps even greater degree in some cases, merely shows your political leanings coincides with theirs. It's not indicative of reality however.
 
When did I say the others aren't guilty? Quote the exact text in my post please.

Reading what you want into another's post is usually a sign of excessive bias BTW.
 
Phew, it's the Silicon Valley helping evil monsters. What a relief. I thought it was those weapons manufacturers in the US whose shares go up when there is a terrorist attack and a war.
 
Jadawin said:
Phew, it's the Silicon Valley helping evil monsters. What a relief. I thought it was those weapons manufacturers in the US whose shares go up when there is a terrorist attack and a war.
Click to expand...

More welfare for the Military Industrial Complex.

Despite Atrocities, U.S. Approves $1.29 Billion Arms Sale to Saudi Arabia

Posted on Nov 17, 2015
By Sarah Lazare


The Pentagon announced on Monday that the U.S. has approved a $1.29 billion arms sale to Saudi Arabia, despite widespread mounting evidence of the country’s mass atrocities and possible war crimes in neighboring Yemen.

The U.S. State Department on Friday approved the sale of over 10,000 bombs, munitions, and weapons parts produced by Boeing and Raytheon. This includes 5,200 Paveway II “laser guided” and 12,000 “general purpose” bombs. “Bunker Busters,” also included in the deal, are designed to destroy concrete structures.

“The proposed sale augments Saudi Arabia’s capability to meet current and future threats from potential adversaries during combat operations,” the Defense Security Cooperation Agency, which is part of the U.S. Department of Defense, said in an announcement of the deal released Monday.

But Raed Jarrar, government relations manager for the American Friends Service Committee (AFSC), told Common Dreams: “Sending additional weapons to the Middle East will not stabilize the region or put an end to violence and extremism. Supporting proxy wars, interventions, and military occupations will only add fuel to the fire.”


“It’s also illegal under U.S. and international law to transfer weapons to human rights abusers, or to forces that will likely use it to commit gross violations of human rights,” Jarrar continued. “There is documented evidence that such abuses have been committed by almost all of U.S. allies in the region.”

The U.S. statement indicates that the deal will, in part, be used to replenish arms for Saudi Arabia’s seven-month-long military assault on Yemen, which has killed at least 2,355 civilians and wounded 4,862, according to United Nations statistics.

With the backing of the U.S. and U.K., the Saudi-led coalition is responsible for the vast majority of these killings. The office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights reported in September that “almost two-thirds of reported civilian deaths had allegedly been caused by coalition airstrikes, which were also responsible for almost two-thirds of damaged or destroyed civilian public buildings.”

The approval came just a month after the U.S. approved an $11.25 billion sale of combat ships to Saudi Arabia, defying the international call for an arms embargo over war crimes concerns. What’s more, it continues a long-standing trend in which the U.S. is a major weapons supplier to the gulf state. The IHS Jane’s 360 report, released in March, found that Saudi Arabia was the primary “defense” trading partner with the United States in 2014.

In announcing this latest weapons deal, the Defense Security Cooperation Agency said: “Providing these defense articles supports Saudi Arabian defense missions and promotes stability in the region… and enables Saudi Arabia to safeguard the world’s largest oil reserves.”

But experts warn that such sales, in fact, are driving instability and atrocities across the Middle East—far beyond Yemen.

In a statement released on Monday, Paul Shannon of the AFSC called on “the U.S., France and the west to cut off its support and vast weapons supplies to Saudi Arabia and other Gulf monarchies whose royal families have been responsible for the spread of the jihadist extremist ideology throughout the region.”

The arms deal will proceed unless Congress moves to block it in the next 30 days.
Click to expand...
 
HAH, welcome to the gun control debate, except now it's our TECH.

Let me cut to the chase, welcome to CONTROL.
 
mesyn191 said:
So did Bush.

Supposedly it was fairly common up until the last few years.

If you want to hate Clinton fine, there are plenty of reasons to do so, but this isn't one of them. And if you think it is then you should hate Bush, Christie, Walker, or Jeb a whole lot more over it if not equally since since they all berate Clinton over it but they themselves ran private email servers too. Virtually no one who gets worked up over this issue seems to ever say a peep about Bush's email shenanigans though for some reason.
Click to expand...

That's because most people aren't aware of it. But just because Bush did it doesn't mean it's right for Clinton to do it too. "He got away with it" is not an excuse.
 
Even when made aware of it the people who hate Clinton over the email "scandal" still will not direct any of their anger at Bush though. Ultimately it has nothing to do with private email servers, they just hate Clinton and want something to rail on her about that doesn't involve Bhaqwhatever, Lewinsky, or Foster.

And Bush didn't "get away with it" any more than Clinton did. If anybody got away with anything its the other politicians who had their own email servers and never got investigated or lambasted by the press.
 
There may be limitations on these laws for acting presidents, I can't remember.
Throw him in jail too, fine by me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top