The infosec community baffles me, when it comes to politics. I'm no fan of Trump, but the unfounded and apoplectic reactions from the likes of Matt Blaze, Swift on Security, the grugq, Jon Zdziarski, halvarflake, netik, kragen, etc, are batshit crazy.
There is absolutely no evidence that a Trump administration poses any threat at all to infosec, and by many measures represents a better option than the alternative.
Trump's former opponent is on record clamoring for a "Manhattan Project style" effort to undermine crypto, and 2600's readership is concerned with the man whose worst security-related gaffe is a vague suggestion about "[calling] up Bill Gates".
I really don't understand these nominally rational people, when it comes to politics.
It's not batshit crazy. It's the responsible response.
Trump's said plenty of disturbing things. Both in his political run and in his 30+ years in the public eye. He's erratic, petty, prone to seeking revenge, and extremely thin-skinned. Americans should have never given this guy power, but they did.
The most responsible thing 2600 et al could do is warn people and be prepared for the worst. If the worst happens, people need to be prepared already and not taking panicked steps at the last minute. History is full of examples of people thinking the incoming leader didn't mean all the awful things he said. It's best to believe what the leader has said and take appropriate action.
There's a chance of looking crazy if Trump ends up not being as bad as his words indicate, but that's a chance worth taking considering the harsh and very possible alternatives.
Flipping out about the nomination of Wilbur Ross, for example, as Secretary of Commerce detracts from the weight of legitimate arguments against many of Trump's other picks.
To many journalists' credit the reaction quickly quieted down once his record and character become more clear, but first impressions are sticky. Now journalists and pundits, especially liberal-leaning pundits, will find it that much more difficult to constructively criticize Ross or other officials in the future given that it's established that they wrongfully flipped out in at least one significant case.
You make fewer of those mistakes when you stick to concrete facts and concrete policy points. And it goes without saying your arguments will be all the more sound for it.
Yes, Trump's rhetoric is anxiety inducing, and there's plenty about his track record, including as president-elect, that evidences he's willing and capable to follow through on much of it. But there's also evidence he won't follow through on some of it. If he doesn't then he can claim people were crying wolf. He probably will do this strategically. Certainly his rhetoric is strategic.
Unfortunately we won't be able to get off this roller coaster for at least 4 years. But that doesn't give everybody carte blanche to start screaming their heads off right out the gate.
Look, plenty of other countries have had to deal with, and are dealing with, demagogues. We know how to do deal with it. Keep your heads on straight and stay vigilant.
Anyhow, if people are right about Trump, there'll be plenty of opportunity for [more] outrage. If there's not, then all the better.
> But there's also evidence he won't follow through on some of it.
I hope you're right, but I really don't understand this view. You look at the terrible leaders throughout history, and you'll find they more often than not advertised what they were going to do and who they were going to be.
I'd much rather be prepared than just assume Trump is a troll. I'd rather see an implacable opposition ready to go on day 1. If Trump ends up being a simply bad president, in the conventional way presidents are bad and not a Russian puppet or kleptocrat or autocrat, then people like me might look a little silly. But that's a small price for being prepared if things turn out very differently.
It's not a question about being silly. It's a question about retaining the legitimacy to persuade people in the middle, people that are currently nominal Trump supporters.
What should scare you the most isn't Trump; it should be the credulity of the electorate, its tolerance of his rhetoric, and its faith in his vague promises. Trump's rhetoric has only _softened_ over the course of the past year. Not too long ago he was literally criticizing John McCain for being captured.
People in dictatorial regimes didn't get there by being quiet. They never were. Even today in places like Venezuela and Russia people take to the streets. They got there by losing a channel of communication to their fellow citizens.
It's no coincidence that Trump's rhetoric is typically vague and non-specific. The whole Muslim registry thing, for example, was vague enough that many people could rationalize it away; that's even easier now that Trump has come out against it.
People are just going to waste their bullets by shooting at poorly defined, moving targets. And when you finally get something lined up in your sites and have a good shot, nobody is going to notice. Trump clearly enjoys tweaking the opposition this way, he understands that his audience enjoys it. Trump understands how and when to hold and distract their attention--it's second nature to him because he thrives on that attention.
All the Republican nomination competitors made the same mistake... and lost. Hillary Clinton made the same mistake... and lost. Pointing out the obvious flaws in his policies, the impossibility of his promises, and his rejection of core American ideals DID NOT WORK! The moment those tactics find any purchase, he changes his tune accordingly.
Too many people _want_ to believe; too many people are reveling in a sense of rebellion, insensitive to consequences. The only way to get through to them is to give them a front-row seat to each and every policy failure, along with an accompanying narrative that squarely lays the blame at his feet.
In the interstitial time between consequential events, people (especially journalists) should just focus on maintaining transparency, so that the record cannot be easily denied. Doing that requires not providing fodder that allows the administration to sow uncertainty and doubt about opposition criticisms.
If people keep reacting to every aspect of Trump's rhetoric, there won't be anybody in the audience left. They'll have all gone home, either secure in their faith in Trump's promises or given over to apathy. Just like people are in Venezuela, Russia, and elsewhere.
It's not about standing up to Trump. This is a democracy. The only way to win is by persuading his supporters, especially when it's this early in the game and Trump and his growing band of sycophants haven't secured much institutional power.
(quote) "People in dictatorial regimes didn't get there by being quiet. They never were. Even today in places like Venezuela and Russia people take to the streets. They got there by losing a channel of communication to their fellow citizens." -- you are clearly out of sync with reality about Russia. Since 2011 protests, Russian regime jails people even at "single person protest" which are always legal by their law, leave alone cases like Bolotnaya. NGOs are pushed into fed-by-govt-or-illegal mode. Political opponents either went into govt-is-right mode or expelled. Mind you, it is not dictatorial, it is only authoritarian. But it is toxic enough. And we haven't even started yet about DT going to hug with Putin asap once he is in chair. Did I mention that almost whole Republican party is in love Putin's image and strong arm behavior? Thank you but your ideas are out of sync with reality.
And yet by every measure Putin remains incredibly popular, even when measured by foreign, non-biased organizations. Just as was Hugo Chavez.
So how are my ideas out of sync with reality? The only thing out-of-sync with reality is doubling-down on the same strategies that lost over the past two years of intense political campaigning.
Policies do not make the candidate. Ultimately, voters elect a person, not a set of abstract policies. Policies _should_ make the candidate, and we _should_ endeavor to nurture a culture where policies matter.
But, alas, in the current environment somebody like Trump is thriving. Like Putin, he thrives _despite_ the fact that clear (though distinct) majorities reject almost every one of his concrete policies. (The exception being national defense, where more is always better and voters don't care much about the details.) And he'll likely follow Putin's pattern--openly promise one thing, do something else when nobody is looking, then deflect criticism using traditional propaganda techniques--promises were "just rhetoric", implemented policies are "misconstrued" and "ill-informed", and... look, squirrel!
Given the cult of personality (Trump the star, Trump the vehicle for rejecting the established order), the way to win is diminish support for the personality. You do that not by attacking policies directly, but by attacking policies in such a way that they expose the personality as a fraud. Those are truly two different things. The latter isn't focused on the rightness or wrongness of policy (always a debatable point), but rather in showing that Trump doesn't actually have voters' interests at heart; you show that Trump is a poor vehicle for reform.
> But there's also evidence he won't follow through on some of it. If he doesn't then he can claim people were crying wolf. He probably will do this strategically. Certainly his rhetoric is strategic.
Far be it from me to question the rhetorical strategies of Trump, but how's this rhetorical strategy going to work exactly?
Trump: "And as usual the media cried wolf and was flipping out, saying that I was going to bulk up our nuclear arsenal"
Sane Person: Well, you did say you were going to build up the nuclear arsenal. They were just quoting you really.
Trump: But I didn't do it! Typical crooked media, always crying wolf.
I'm resistant to call this a "rhetorical strategy." It is totally reasonable for the media or anyone else to take a president elect's policy statements as, well, policy statements.
If Trump backs out of those statements, Trump can explain why he changed his mind, I have no problem with that. But no, I don't think the blame shifts to the media because they took Trump at his word.
What I find interesting about your second paragraph is that without inlined supporting evidence, it can be used to describe any president since the last founder was elected:
> The President's said plenty of disturbing things. Both in his political run and in his 30+ years in the public eye. He's erratic, petty, prone to seeking revenge, and extremely thin-skinned. Americans should have never given this guy power, but they did.
> It's not batshit crazy. It's the responsible response.
I think it's batshit crazy. He's not sophisticated enough to understand how to manipulate currency (he delegates everything, not discusses or strategizes like Obama). Without strategy, there's nothing to hide from. Nobody has ever addressed stenography (although that was a big thing in the 90s), so what kind of headway from a noncommittal populist is there to be had? Fearing Trump is misunderstanding the situation. How hackers manage that, is a constant source of amusement.
>He's not sophisticated enough to understand how to manipulate currency (he delegates everything).
My boss doesn't understand half the programming work I do, but I still have to work on the projects he gives me or he'll find another employee who will.
Delegating doesn't imply he knows wtf he's doing. The fact he nearly scuttled his fortunes in the early 90s indicates a complete and utter lack of understanding of business on his part.
> Delegating doesn't imply he knows wtf he's doing
That was the intentional implication. Political power does not block technology, it just changes it. An honored publication, acting like a kid's magazine posting some hand waving about the scary times, is laughable. You know who is going to be set back? RMS, and he knows it. This administration has some knowledge about IP.
> "To think that Apple won't allow us to get into her cellphone? Who do they think they are? No, we have to open it," Trump said during an interview on "Fox & Friends."
> The Republican presidential front-runner called it a matter of common sense:
> I agree 100% with the courts. In that case, we should open it up. I think security overall — we have to open it up. And we have to use our heads. We have to use common sense. Somebody the other day called me a common-sense conservative. We have to use common sense. Our country has so many problems.
Not trying to be mean, but are you saying that Trump represents a new and terrifying threat to infosec because he "agrees 100%" with the existing courts and administration?
But he used that in advocating a "common sense" approach to security. It's nothing but a vague non-statement that government needs to make reasonable decisions. Your response is going to depend entirely on your opinion of Trump and his administration's judgment. If you support it, you'll support the statement, but if you oppose it, that statement changes nothing, because you always knew the administration was going to use their own version of "common sense" to make decisions. So your reaction says nothing about Trump and just hints at your existing biases, which is fine, but no argument for concern.
(I think candidates in both parties past, present, and future have been daft on this) A "common sense" approach to security is basically, "of course good guys should have access." Reality means that, "well, sometimes nobody has access." We can work on a compromise, but that's going to be a long, thoughtful, nuanced conversation that should happen in the open--which nobody seems to want.
Feel free to call it "bias," for me it's "context" based on past behaviors. Trump is very reactionary, flagrantly ignores facts (at least when talking to the public), and seems unwilling to look at what was sacrificed to achieve what he advocates. If he treats emails that way I think he'll have as much luck as the last person did.
I was actually surprised and disappointed to find how other government officials seem to disregard privacy. Knowing Trump's history, I'm not surprised and concerned how things would get pushed further. No matter who won I think we should be louder and be fighting back.
"We have to open it" means "we have to make apple turn over decrypted communication." The next point in this argument involves a sentence diagram and a dictionary. Do we have to go there?
And his opponent had said even worse things, and committed even worse actions against the practice of information security. If hackers are scared of Trump, they should be downright grateful that Clinton didn't win.
And I say this as a member of the info sec community who most certainly did not vote for Trump. There are very few politicians in the US that could be considered "good" for hackers, present administration included. Trump hasn't said or done anything that our current government hasn't already said or done.
I guess we could have a long conversation about whether it's Clinton or Trump who would have ultimately been worse in terms of national infosec implications,
but that conclusion is far away from "Trump is not bad for infosec, actually" especially when you look back further than the Obama administration and remember that the US government used to classify cryptography as literal munitions.
the fbi is a branch of government, not "the government"
and yes, they did get a judge to side with them, but to side with such a ruling because "the government" is a disservice to justice.. as there is much more to the rule of law then blind obedience to a single ruling.
I'm not sure what I'm missing here. The position of the government was pretty clear that "Apple should unlock the phone," until the FBI did it independently.
Personally, I agree with Apple's position. Security requires trust, and Apple showed good reason to trust them, enough that I went out and bought an iPhone.
But I have no idea how Trump agreeing with the courts and the FBI shows some kind of radical new threat.
That Apple saga was quite an interesting view into American politics. If you ask me, Trump and a lot of the government is out of touch with Privacy rights. The opposite battle is taking place with free speech in Canada[0], with the government wanting to curtail free speech in the name of preferred pronouns referencing gender. In both cases, the Government wants to harm free speech, but I think many people who are against it in Apple's case would be for it in Canada's. I could be wrong though.
It's an interesting parallel you draw. In one case, Canadian students played pranks on an out-of-touch professor, and in the other, the incoming presidential administration in America is taking actions that have historically preceded mass deportation and genocide, both in the sense of "necessary" and "sufficient". Not to say the two aren't directly comparable -- though the queer kids are real dark horses vis-a-vis establishing and normalizing concentration camps.
Perhaps the lesson to draw is that, really, we're all authoritarians in some degree. Some of us want our uncle to stop saying the N-word at the Thanksgiving dinner table, some of us don't identify with our assigned gender and lash out at the opposition with responses of disproportional magnitude, and some of us want to classify people by religion and detain them. America truly is a melting pot.
He doesn't "agree 100%" with the courts. Saying it doesn't make it true. He likely has no idea what the courts think about this issue, and doesn't really care.
Trump doesn't generally take concrete positions, so I can't find any other meaningful quote from him on surveillance or encryption or anything like that. If you're just asking in general, he has disagreed with the courts many times, such as on Roe v. Wade or his own lawsuits.
This quote in isolation is still not great, what does "I think security overall — we have to open it up" mean? But looking at it in isolation is obviously not very useful. Combine it with his lack of a position on many other important issues, and his cabinet picks so far.
He was obviously talking about agreeing with the courts in this case, not every matter, which wouldn't even be a rational statement since courts disagree. He does speak in generalities, but so does every politician. He's often especially vague, for sure. That doesn't seem to be a legitimate reason for so many people to project their worst fears onto every generality, to the point of hysteria.
Well, the only really concrete actions he's been able to take so far have been announcing cabinet appointments, and so far they're confirming those hysterical peoples' fears. So maybe they have a point.
All politicians speak in vague generalities, but most have a record. When a president has no record and no position, I think it is reasonable to prepare for the worst, just in case.
When he appointed someone who was apparently under serious consideration for Clinton's cabinet too, that still confirmed those hysterical people's fears. It's almost like they're not actually falsifiable in any way.
Which pick are you talking about? I couldn't find much with google. But regardless, Clinton isn't the president, so it doesn't really matter who she was considering. Trump is appointing people who don't understand climate change, want to abolish the departments they're in charge of, oppose minimum wage rises, don't understand what Planned Parenthood is for, have no government experience, etc. Obviously lots of people like these things, that's why he's making the appointments, but don't tell me you didn't hear these fears before the election. People were hysterical about these exact possibilities, and now they're happening.
How about appointing an attorney general who opposed FISA reform and the USA Freedom Act (limiting the NSA), and tried to amend the Email Privacy Act to allow federal agents to read electronic communications without a warrant in an "emergency situation"?
Also, appointing a CIA director who wants to bring back the Patriot Act and supports the death penalty for Snowden.
> I'm no fan of Trump, but the unfounded and apoplectic reactions from the likes of Matt Blaze, Swift on Security, the grugq, Jon Zdziarski, halvarflake, netik, kragen, etc, are batshit crazy.
Well, someone is clearly reacting incorrectly. Maybe it's Schneier, 2600, Matt Blaze, Swift on Security, the grugq, Jon Zdziarski, halvarflake, netik, kragen, etc. And maybe it's you.
Which side it is, is currently up to everyone to decide for themselves. But I know who I trust more.
He didn't cite Schneier did he? I really like Schneier and while i'm pretty sure of his political leanings, he doesn't seem to be the type of guy that would abandon his love of logic and reason for some political temper tantrums.
Anyway I will admit I felt compelled to un-follow a couple people on Twitter, and muted some that I normally find very entertaining (swift on security being one of them) because they are channeling their political grief in ways that make them look very foolish to me. How can I trust their logic if they claim or suggest that Trump is going to lock up gay people or will preemptively fire nukes on day 1? There is a massive amount of lies and unfounded propaganda that was put out in the media against Trump that never was nor ever will be true.
The person I was replying to did not. But he has weighed in on the matter. From https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2016/12/my_priorities...: "Under a Clinton administration, my list would have looked much the same. Trump's election just means the threats will be much greater, and the battles a lot harder to win. It's more than I can possibly do on my own, and I am therefore substantially increasing my annual philanthropy to support organizations like EPIC, EFF, ACLU, and Access Now in continuing their work in these areas.
My agenda is necessarily focused entirely on my particular areas of concern. The risks of a Trump presidency are far more pernicious, but this is where I have expertise and influence."
> I really like Schneier and while i'm pretty sure of his political leanings, he doesn't seem to be the type of guy that would abandon his love of logic and reason for some political temper tantrums.
They could each be reacting "correctly" since they might have very different outcomes. Still not an excuse for dismissing those people as crazy, but you don't have to be afraid for yourself to be not-crazy.
The simple answer is this worry is very founded because of the people he nominates and the statements he has made about how the govt should have access to cell phones. Yes, HRC made some stupid plans of her own. Trump is worse.
> Trump's former opponent is on record clamoring for a "Manhattan Project style" effort to undermine crypto
While Clinton did call for a "Manhattan Project," it was not to "undermine crypto." In fact she said in a townhall that she opposed back doors, which puts her on the right side a line that Trump is on the wrong side of--he said that Apple should be compelled to build the backdoor that FBI asked for.
And now we have reporting that her advisors knew the reality of encryption and were working on education her.
The scariest things about Trump are 1) he shows no inclination to study or understand complex policy subjects, of which infosec is certainly one, 2) he has policy proposals that will require extremely invasive info technologies to work, like a Muslim registry and mass deportation of immigrants, and 3) he reacts aggressively and impulsively to any criticism or disagreement, which the infosec delivers in spades.
People are reacting to the statements, proposed initiatives and official nominations of president-elect Trump, on grounds that they have no other evidence to go on than to take him at his word and believe that he is proposing things which, and nominating people whose ideas jive with, his views.
The only rational thing we can do is judge the man by his words, policies and actions. And those look absolutely dismal.
And there was that one thing about forcing Apple to put a backdoor in IOS and then calling for a boycott on their products when they refused, but no, undermining security is totally cool. The Grugq definitely doesn't know anything about security.
The ominous title and the fact that I couldn't actually read the article scared me a bit. I kind of assumed some bad news about them shutting down.
I have not subscribed in quite some many years. And I can't remember the last volume that I read. And yet. I was suddenly sad and ready support them financially.
I think 2600 has been a good influence. I hope they always stick around.
Note: the message has nothing to do with them going anywhere.
I was never a subscriber, but I picked up a fair number of issues from the bookstore. It was a little annoying how often they would post an article from someone who clearly had no idea what he was talking about. Sifting through the bullshit to find the nuggets is a tiring job.
It's also one of the periodicals that I am absolutely amazed is still printed on dead trees. I would have expected them to be one of the first to go all digital.
I thought the same thing. I'm giving my 16 year old son (who's into hacking) a lifetime subscription for Christmas, so I would really have been bummed if they were closing down.
Then support 2600 and subscribe. Having a few mags to kick around the bathroom isn't the worst use of money and the wife/kids/friends might scan through them.
I've got 5 years of mags sitting on a shelf in my closet. The girlfriend goes browsing through every now and again and comes up with interesting sec/privacy/hacking related convo. That alone pays for their place in my life.
The day Emmanuel stops doing Off The Hook & Off The Wall will be a sad one though.
I can't imagine what would make Emmanuel decide to stop doing radio, but I am quietly installing a hidden system of personal restraints into his favorite chair in the studio just in case.
I was expecting some big message, especially after three minutes of loading time. The only substantive change is that successful article submissions now yield both a year's subscription and the t-shirt. Before, you had to pick one or the other.
2600's hackers don't matter much any more. Hacking is now carried out by either intelligence agencies or ongoing criminal enterprises.
There is so much anxiety around the incoming president. Even friends of mine in the GSA who handle anything around energy efficiency with different government agencies are changing their titles for fear of losing their jobs since the incoming administration is clearly in the position of denying climate change is even a thing. I know this post focused on infosec, but the overall tone strikes at the anxiousness being felt throughout the entire ecosystem. I'm a proud 2600 subscriber and very glad the staff is taking a stand publicly.
> "We've received requests from both readers and writers to erase all evidence of their existence in our correspondence and to cancel their subscriptions and remove their names from our database"
Weird. My level of concern: I buy every copy with a credit card at Barnes & Noble.
Right? I work for a major tech company and can get a subscription delivered to the office if I wanted to, paid for by my employer.
I feel like a lot of independent hackers (as well as government officials) don't realize that hacking and info sec in general can be (and currently is) a completely acceptable enterprise occupation. If hackers were being rounded up and sent to jail, I can count at least 4,000 people at my company who would be missing Monday morning. And that's just the number of people connected to my Slack team, which is not mandatory to join.
"Since November, we have witnessed a variety of reactions to the surprising political developments in our country. We expect nothing less and welcome the thoughts, opinions, ideas, and schemes that our readers and writers put forth. There is one disturbing perspective, though, that we need to address.
A number of people in our community feel that hackers in particular will be under increased scrutiny and will be facing significant threats under a Trump administration. We've received requests from both readers and writers to erase all evidence of their existence in our correspondence and to cancel their subscriptions and remove their names from our database. On more than one occasion, all hacker-related clothing was also thrown in the trash.
It's this reaction that we find more disturbing than any of the many potential threats we're facing. Why? Because bad things happen when people let them. As long as we stand united and are willing to fight back against anything that would threaten us as individuals or as a community, we have what it takes to prevent such threats from taking hold. If we yield, it's handing out a blank check.
Yes, there is much to be concerned about and even to fear. Hackers, as always, seem to be right in the middle of the controversial news stories bombarding us every day. But we need to embrace this, not push it away. We have always protected the confidentiality of both our subscribers and those sources who contribute material to our publication. We will never stop doing this.
There is great strength in numbers and in intelligence. We need both in order to survive what may be hugely challenging times. We cannot let the specter of oppression slow us down because if such a scenario were to come true, that is when we would be needed the most. We should have more articles than ever, edgy and controversial material that we embrace, and a ton of people who aren't afraid to read and collect what we're putting out. After all, it's in the darkest hours when a bright light makes the most difference.
We are changing the terms for writers of printed pieces, beginning with the Winter 2016-2017 issue due out in early January. Instead of a choice between a year of our magazine or one of our t-shirts, we are now offering both of these items for every article printed. And as for what articles we're looking for, as always we want pieces that embrace the hacker spirit, that examine and dissect technology in ways others haven't, and/or that reveal inconvenient truths about services and products that those in charge really don't want people to know about. Bombshells and leaks of all types are great and, as mentioned, we always protect our sources. And, being a printed magazine, it's a lot harder to block or filter us from any part of the globe.
You can send your article contributions to articles@2600.com or by surface or air mail to 2600 Editorial Department, PO Box 99, Middle Island, NY 11953 USA.
We are but one window into a world of amazing voices. Please support others as well as us. If our speech and communication are to be seen as a threat to any regime, it's far better that there be a huge number of us than a tiny number. There will be some tests ahead and probably some hard times. We can't think of a better group to face that with."
I have a LOT of friends who went through all the government growing pains when they were trying to enact laws to try and curb hacking. The feds were putting people away for 20+ years and weren't screwing around when they went after hackers. And what happened? We all banded together, formed underground communities, shared ideas on how to evade the government, and created tools to do so, some of which are still in use to this very day.
The fact that people seem overtly paranoid about a Trump presidency is so overblown. I mean, some of the toughest sentences that have been handed down to hackers were done under both a republican president and a democratic president (Clinton and Bush) and to a large degree the FBI is (or should be) a non political entity.
I can't believe this people have also forgotten about the fight for proper encryption, how we are rallying to get the CFAA laws changed as well as the progress that Snowden has brought this country in terms of the governments overreach with regards to spying on its citizens.
I see and hear a lot of this and just shake my head. Hackers have always been at war with the government in some shape or form. Just because we have a new president should not deter people from continuing the fight.
Probably because the "hacker" population you are referring to has gotten diluted with posers and the sort of people who easily give in to mass hysteria.
It's very sad that people feel this way, no matter if it justified or not. I feel like this presidential election has had more groups than usual come out and talk about similar feelings and/or actions. Is this a byproduct of new (accurate or not) being much more available compared to previous elections? In other words, did stuff like this happen before and we just never heard about it or is it really happening more this time around?
I've lived on the internet since 92 and have always taken an intense interest in politics, so that's 6 presidential elections and 5 midterms (and multiple elections in various Euro countries I've lived in). I'd say there's a significant qualitative difference between this and any previous political turning I've experienced.
HN isn't for this kind of partisan battle. Admittedly the thread was dubious in that respect to begin with, but it takes a noticeable turn for the worse here. If you're going to post comments in politicized threads, please post the kind that make flamewars less likely, not more.
I'm not sure how this is off-topic, and I don't believe my statements were partisan. I think any rational person would make the same observation. The topic is people acting irrationally to Trump's win.
I tried to explain, but let me try again. The further discussions go into partisan hell, the more off topic they get. The thread was bad enough already, but yours upped the ante—if it had any mooring to content that wasn't just political battle (e.g. the infosec aspects), you unmoored it. Please don't do that. The way to be a good contributor here is to help threads go away from that end-state, not get further into it.
Generic 'electoral college vs. popular vote' arguments, let alone 'no the Clinton staffer didn't say he would die of climate change yes he did', exemplify what we don't want here.
Edit: you edited your comment to something considerably different after I posted this. That's not a courteous way to react to what someone says. Instead, please post a reply, or somehow demark what you've changed in response to new information.
I only added that it wasn't intended to be partisan either, since you either edited your comment (without demarcation) or I didn't see the "partisan battle/hell" comment you made. I disagree that this made it "considerably different" since the other wording and theme of my reply was exactly the same. If minor clarifications that barely alter the wording, let alone the theme of the comment, now require demarcation, HN comments sections will get very long and confusing.
> These kinds of irrational responses in response to a Clinton win would have been openly mocked and criticized by the same media that celebrates them on the left.
Yes because Clinton is a responsible, experienced politician.
Your comment only makes sense if one believes that there is no difference between Trump and Clinton, which truly is irrational. That is, to hold that belief, one must ignore a gigantic mountain of objectively verifiable evidence to the contrary.
If you think this is a partisan thing, you're wrong. I know a lot of life-long Republicans who are upset at Trump's victory, and fearful for what it means for the nation.
I don't think it's irrational to believe that there is little meaningful difference between Trump and Clinton, or Obama for that matter, when it comes to digital surveillance. To my recollection, only Jill Stein talked seriously about dismantling the NSA and its ilk.
There's a lot more to digital surveillance and privacy than the NSA.
Local and state police use digital surveillance technology extensively. Clinton called for police reforms and de-militarization. Trump's policies call for greater police authority and "law and order" above all else. Trump policies will clearly empower and fund greater police surveillance of citizens.
Trump also proposed several policies that would only work with an increase in the depth and breadth of digital surveillance--like a national registry of Muslims, continuous tracking of all immigrants, and mass deportations of illegal immigrants.
Even if you are in favor of deporting illegal immigrants, you must understand that the first step in doing so is finding the illegal immigrants. And the first step of that is to accumulate the largest possible data set on all American residents, so that you can filter for signals that might correlate with illegals.
Finally, on the federal agencies, Clinton said in a town hall that she did not think the government should require backdoors in consumer technology. In contrast, Trump spoke in favor of forcing Apple and others to install backdoors for law enforcement.
In short, if you think there was no difference between Clinton and Trump on issues of digital surveillance, I think you didn't do your homework.
>Yes because Clinton is a responsible, experienced politician.
I have to take issue with your definition of "responsible". Regardless, many people feared Obama's presidency, but the rhetoric never got as absurd as it is with Trump. I cannot imagine Mrs. Bush publicly stoking fears of Obama before he took office, despite extreme differences in political views - what Mrs. Obama said was horribly disrespectful of the office of President and of the will of the American people. This kind of condescending dismissal of the opinions of a wide swath of the population is precisely why Trump won, and it's painfully obvious from their statements that the even most visible and influential Democrats have learned nothing from this election.
Trump has many issues. So did Clinton. They were both terrible candidates. And yet, the US that we all know and love will still be here when he leaves office - despite radical assertions to the contrary by otherwise rational people.
And what's the point of that, other than making the case for Calexit? I mean, sure, you can construct scenarios by excluding any grouping of 1/8 of the population.
It's really not, any more than any other than other geographically contiguous region with an 1/8 the population of the country is. I mean, sure, each part is different from the whole, but California isn't unusually different.
No, it really isn't. It's more like a sovereign state loosely bundled under the umbrella of the other states, except it is privileged by virtue of its population to dictate to the other 49 states. By all rights it ought to be segmented up into four or five states. I'm no fan of the Democratic party, and realize that any segmentation of California would result in more democrats in the senate, but even so, California is too big.
Actually, California's population reduces, rather than increases, it's political power within the union proportional to its population.
> any segmentation of California would result in more democrats in the senate
That's actually not true; it's quite easy to divide California into a hyper-Democratic coastal state and a solidly Republican inland state, which would only increase the number of Republicans in the Senate.
Well, except in the Senate and the Electoral College. To the extent that California's consumer laws have fucked things up for the rest of us, they deserve to be exorciated.
Fucking up the design of gasoline cans should almost be grounds for expulsion from the union...
> Fucking up the design of gasoline cans should almost be grounds for expulsion from the union
Expelling California from the union would be an enormous cost saving move for Californians and a huge loss of resources for the union.
But, actually, New York does as much leading the rest of the nation in laws and setting standards everyone else ends up complying with because businesses adapt to them as California, and generally in the same direction.
So you should probably throw them out, too. Which would economically be the same kind of deal.
Anybody that would seriously consider instituting the California-mandated fucking terrible gasoline can designs across their entire company should be drawn and quartered, in the style of the Plantagenet English monarchy.
We have the system we have. The rules have been laid out for centuries. According to our system, the will of the people is determined based upon electoral college votes of individual states. Clinton strategists knew the rules, and they lost by the rules. Don't go trying to move the goal posts after you lose. This whole argument is yet another attempt to dismiss the opinions of a huge segment of the population, and is exactly the kind of stuff I was referring to as a reason you lost.
> According to our system, the will of the people is determined based upon electoral college votes of individual states
No, according to our system -- conceived to protect slavery, and sold to New Yorkers as a protection against the people falling for a dangerous demagogue -- electoral college votes decide the outcome instead of the will of the people being respected. Not even in theory does the electoral college determine the will of the people.
See you seem to conflate the "will of the people" for the rules of the election. I'm not debating that Trump won, I'm debating that the will of the people was done.
I also was not a Hillary supporter, but again the rules are basically set out in a way that means that no matter what this election a large segment of the population's views would be ignored. Turns out this time we went with the minority opinion and ignored the majority.
No, according to the rules, the will of the people is irrelevant; the rules don't determine what the will of the people is, only whether it has any relevance to the outcome.
Trumps tweet today about increasing the US's nuclear arsenal seems like a reasonable thing to be quite nervous about, assuming he has the political skill to make it happen (which maybe is a reason to be less concerned).
You're wrong about what the Clinton staffer said. He said, in article 1 that you've linked: “You and your friends will die of old age and I’m going to die from climate change. You and your friends let this happen, which is going to cut 40 years off my life expectancy.”
It is plainly false to claim that he is going to die during the 4 years of Trump being in office. Please don't lie.
It's quite likely that with the RCP 8.5 climate change model, which could be feasible under a Trump administration since he has stated many times that he wants to increase the use of climate change inducing energy sources, someone who is 25 years old right now could die from climate change's apocalyptic effects when they are a senior. As for 40 years off his life expectancy, that's possible, depending on what life expectancy could be by the time he reaches that age.
> It's quite likely that with the RCP 8.5 climate change model, which could be feasible under a Trump administration since he has stated many times that he wants to increase the use of climate change inducing energy sources, someone who is 25 years old right now could die from climate change's apocalyptic effects when they are a senior.
Please tell me how. Excluding wars, I don't see how climate change will kill many healthy people in the US or Europe in the next century. It will affect our lives, surely. But kill?
Re: "depending on what life expectancy could be by the time he reaches that age"
This is quite easy to estimate, since increases in life expectancy have been constant for the past 80 years. The Dept. of Social Security even has an online calculator for it, which says a 25 year old male today has a life expectancy of 82.3 years.
Do you really think he'll be dead in 15 years from now due to climate change?
A 1% loss of Greenland's ice mass raises seas by 6cm. A 1% loss of ice from the Antarctic, polar, and Greenland sheets will yield 76cm rise in sea level. This puts entire European and American cities under water.
If all three melt entirely, we are looking at about 70m of sea level rise bringing the oceans to the heartland of America.
Those numbers don't take into account other glaciers or thermal expansion of water as the base line temperature rises.
As sea levels rise, hundreds of millions of people will be displaced and die trying to relocate. See: any time in history people have tried to move en masse.
Surely, human kind will survive. Life will surely survive. I think you're nuts if you think anything remotely related to the status quo will survive the next century.
Your 70m of sea level rise is entirely unsupported by the paper you link to, where the worst-case scenario in 2500 is 10m rise.
The latest IPCC report in the RCP8.5 scenario (very pessimistic, emissions keep increasing) predicts 62 +/- 20 cm of sea level rise from 1990 to 2100.
How on earth will that drive mass displacement of people in the US and Europe?
You're saying 75 cm of sea level rise will put entire cities underwater. Which ones, and why are they not already under water? Autumn storms bring waves much taller than 75 cm. Most coastal cities are built to withstand 2 meter waves, probably even more.
Besides, they lifted all of Chicago by that much already a hundred years ago. We'll have exactly zero problems fixing this.
Look, I'm no climate change skeptic. But the fact that no real life-changing effects are expected for young people today nor our children (in the US/Europe) is the biggest problem in fighting climate change. That, and the fact that literally everything we do today causes emissions.
I in no way "lied," I merely did the math based upon his statement and likely age given his station in life.
He said Trump was going to cut 40 years off of his life expectancy, and specifically said that his cause of death would be climate change that will occur as a direct result of Trump winning the election. Assuming he is in his 30's (it would be rare for someone to be senior enough to have been in that meeting if he weren't), he will be at least 34 when Trump leaves office. The life expectancy of an American male (pre-Trump death rays) is 76.3 years [1]. 76.3-40=36.3. Assuming he was at least 32, he is claiming that he will indeed die during Trump's initial term. If he is slightly younger, you are correct that he might survive a couple of years into the next Presidential term according to his version of science.
You are calculating from life expectancy at birth, not life expectancy at his current age. That's a fairly serious methodology flaw that makes your calculation meaningless.
For a 30 year old male, life expectancy is +52.2 years, so Trump taking 40 years off of that would leave about 8 years after the end of the first Trump term.
The infosec community baffles me, when it comes to politics. I'm no fan of Trump, but the unfounded and apoplectic reactions from the likes of Matt Blaze, Swift on Security, the grugq, Jon Zdziarski, halvarflake, netik, kragen, etc, are batshit crazy.
There is absolutely no evidence that a Trump administration poses any threat at all to infosec, and by many measures represents a better option than the alternative.
Trump's former opponent is on record clamoring for a "Manhattan Project style" effort to undermine crypto, and 2600's readership is concerned with the man whose worst security-related gaffe is a vague suggestion about "[calling] up Bill Gates".
I really don't understand these nominally rational people, when it comes to politics.