
Obama Has Gotten 3,000+ Tweets about Encryption. Let’s Double That - DiabloD3
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/03/obama-has-gotten-3000-tweets-about-encryption-lets-double
======
afarrell
Rather than sending a message to a president who no longer has any elections
left and has less than a year in office, wouldn't it make more sense to look
up your legislators[1] and write letters to them?

1/3rd of US senators and all representatives have an election coming up. They
care more about voters than they do about Apple's $38 Billion[2] in liquid
assets, so they need to be convinced that votes are on the side of sound
security.

[1]
[http://openstates.org/find_your_legislator/](http://openstates.org/find_your_legislator/)

[2]
[https://ycharts.com/companies/AAPL/cash_on_hand](https://ycharts.com/companies/AAPL/cash_on_hand)

~~~
threatofrain
I don't think writing letters to senators do anything. High level elected
politicians will likely have access to some kind of political consulting firm
that looks at contentious districts or groups with strong get-out-to-vote
organization in places that matter. Letters aren't going to fool a political
consulting firm into thinking the needle of district opinion has moved
somewhere.

Perhaps the software workers of America should consider organizing a
professional association, just like the AMA? It would have all sorts of
benefits beyond organizing political action.

~~~
studentrob
Informing your representatives of issues you care about definitely makes a
difference. They have jobs because people vote for them. If a vocal group
feels strongly about one issue, and they campaign for that, the representative
needs to pay attention or they risk losing their job.

Don't assume that someone else will represent you via a petition. Calling or
writing yourself is much more powerful.

~~~
threatofrain
I believe you have under-clashed with argument, as if I didn't respond head-on
to that point already.

(1) If your district isn't contentious, that means the sum of factors aren't
of sufficient effect size to care about that specific district. With limited
funds, you concentrate elsewhere.

(2) Just because there's noise doesn't mean that people's opinions have
changed. You're assuming that people's opinions have not already been modeled.
Some elected official may suddenly get a flood of emails about gun rights in
proximity to some highly publicized event on gun laws. That does not mean that
the distribution or magnitude of opinions have substantively changed.

(3) Some groups do have negotiating power because they're aware of the
political calculus more intimately than the average noise-making group like
Black Lives Matter. They're able to distribute distilled information to their
members and organize effective get-out-to-vote drives in the districts that
matter (meaning they also do not wantonly spend their finite resources).

If you don't organize, then you are noise. Organizing is more important than
voting (or writing a letter) itself, because part of organizing is dealing
with finite resources through the skillful attending to the places that
matter, and skillful neglect of the places that don't matter, implying that
you can actually deliver on a get-out-to-vote drive when the time (and places)
matters.

~~~
studentrob
Hmm. First off, you do not really know if senators read letters or pay
attention to phone calls or blog posts or not.

Second, my feeling is if someone sits down to think about an issue, writes a
letter and stamps their name on it, then they probably become more informed
and involved in discussion than another guy who just ticks a box on a
petition. This informed person can go on to discuss the issue with friends or
form his/her own local group. So, writing letters to senators _is_ useful,
even if it is just a first step or means to an end.

Nobody needs to change their opinion as a result of my letter. I wouldn't
respect them if they did so without consideration. So (2) is irrelevant.

I didn't intend to clash with you, I'm just stating my opinion which is a bit
different than yours. It's perfectly fine if you want to say writing letters
is useless. I feel differently.

If you sit back and assume your district is already modeled, etc etc, then you
are not participating in democracy and you have not seen for yourself who else
out there might agree with you. The most important things about democracy are
your vote _and_ your voice. One without the other holds much less strength.

------
prestonbriggs
Tweets, schmeets. He can ignore 'em all the doo-dah day. Send him a letter.

~~~
aarongolliver
After you do that you can also leave a message at White House comment line,
202-456-1111.

------
JustSomeNobody
I don't encrypt because I have something to hide. I encrypt because I don't
want anyone to tell me I can't hide anything.

~~~
WillAbides
Me too. Also, I have terribly embarrassing secrets.

------
studentrob
The EFF is fighting the fight we all should be fighting.

In my opinion their letters are too forceful and not understanding of how
difficult it is to enforce the law and bring justice to victims. For example,
they write

> We call on the Obama Administration to heed the advice of neutral security
> experts, engineers, and even his own advisors who have affirmed the dangers
> inherent in the order issued to Apple

There's no need for Obama to change his mind here simply because experts say
so. In fact, if properly explained, he could understand himself that software
is ungovernable. Encryption technology is just words on paper.

Print out an encryption program and send it to your representatives. Let them
see how anyone can create it for free. Let's educate our representatives.
Enough with this idea that they need to be beaten over the head with a stick.
They believe they are doing the job protecting public safety and the
constitution. Once you give them that benefit of the doubt, then we will be
able to move forward.

~~~
erikpukinskis
He doesn't need to "govern" all of software. He just wants to control the
dominant platforms, so some percentage of law enforcement efforts can get a
little traction there. The fact that a percentage of criminals will use
encryption anyway is unavoidable they're not trying to stop that.

~~~
studentrob
He has not said that, nor has any representative or DOJ official.

------
studentrob
By the way, the next meeting of the President's Council of Advisors on Science
and Technology (PCAST) is on Friday, March 25, and will be shown live here [1]

You can submit questions to them at PCAST@ostp.eop.gov . This might be another
good place to direction questions about the President's understanding of
encryption technology.

[1]
[https://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/ostp/pcast](https://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/ostp/pcast)

------
rokhayakebe
Ask HN: A very genuine question.

How do you propose we keep an eye on those who mean to physically harm others?
How would you solve this?

~~~
rrggrr
Terrorism kills fewer people than almost every hazard Americans face. Cancer,
auto accidents, drug resistant bacteria, and hundreds of other risks are how
99.5% of Americans will die. So, for the minuscule risk that terrorism
presents we've spent billions, give up privacy and consider ever more extreme
measures?

How about instead we instead acknowledge the risks are small to Americans, and
refocus our attention, our lethal attention, to the clerics, organizations,
bankers and states that sponsor terrorism.

Let's talk giving up civil liberties after we have run out of accountable
parties to bring to justice.

------
deciplex
How many of them has he read, though? And, how many of them does he need to
read / receive to change his administration's posturing on this?

(My guess: 0 and ∞)

------
spoiledtechie
Its interesting that such a vocal West Coast crowd votes for Obama, when in
fact he has been one of the worst presidents in recent history on use of
privacy and security.

Im curious to know why people still follow a person with such a horrible
record on the constitution, when he studied in great detail.

~~~
toomuchtodo
With Obama's recent actions regarding privacy and encryption, I'm terribly
glad I didn't go to work for the US Digital Service.

~~~
studentrob
It's not like the President understands that encryption is ungovernable and is
pursuing a fruitless path on purpose. He just doesn't get it.

We should be begging smart people to get in the White House and help relate
the facts to him. The current CTO Megan Smith is there calling for more people
to join. She says the discussion about encryption is "ongoing". She's
obviously outnumbered. Tech does not have proper representation in the White
House.

~~~
spoiledtechie
Stop giving the president just another excuse to give him another out.

He has plenty of smart people around him, yet he still insists on government
over privacy.

~~~
studentrob
It's not an excuse, he's a lousy guy for not giving tech staff his sincere
attention. My point is, nobody has broken through to him yet. It's his fault,
but that doesn't mean we should stop trying. We all bear the results of what
he says publicly.

------
odinduty
Do you honestly think he's going to read any of them? I can't imagine him
scrolling through his notifications feed, but hey, who knows what he does when
he's sitting on the toilet :P

~~~
JustSomeNobody
Doubtful he has that kind of time but he has staff who will. And if he has any
integrity, he will at least take people's concerns into consideration.

~~~
privong
> Doubtful he has that kind of time but he has staff who will. And if he has
> any integrity, he will at least take people's concerns into consideration.

If he's not reading them himself (I agree with you that he probably isn't) he
likely only hears what his staffers tell him, so he might not even be aware of
some people's concerns.

------
terravion
3001!

