Important Note:

Opinions are fun. My friends tell me I am someone with lots of opinions and that's fine since I don't get mad at others when they disagree with me. In this same spirit I am interested in hearing yours views as long as you are able to share your views without boiling over. I look forward to hearing from you. I tend to write in the form of short essays most of the time, but contributions do not need to be in this same format or size. Some of the content here will date itself pretty quickly, other content may be virtually timeless, this is for the reader to judge.

Displaying 1 - 1 of 1

She Said What!                                                                                    

Posted at: Dec/24/2015 : Posted by: mel

Related Category: People, Politics & Gov, Watching America,

There are lots of ways to find entertainment through your day. Television is a good start, but you will eventually run out of content and start binge watching programs from 20 years ago to sustain this input form. Another possible form of entertainment is the programs sharing videos of people either being caught in a bad situation, or just being incredibly stupid. This path could easily lead to a discussion about “Darwinist like self-selection.” Similar to videos of people being stupid, there is also a substantial amount of entertainment that can be garnered by watching and listening to politicians without their handlers close by.

The Democratic presidential debate of 20 December 2015 offered a number of these special moments that clearly lacked any intellectual clarity. It all started when the host network, ABC gave Hillary Clinton an inane prompt. Characterizing encryption as a “terrorist tool used in the Paris attacks,” Clinton was asked how she would deal with this threat in the context of the general theme of national security. In response to this query, Clinton suggested that instead of breaking encryption, the U.S. should launch a “Manhattan-like project” to “bring the government and tech communities together” so that law enforcement can “prevent attacks.”

"Maybe the back door isn't the right door, and I understand what Apple and others are saying about that," Clinton said. "I just think there's got to be a way, and I would hope that our tech companies would work with government to figure that out." Maybe I’m too technical, but as no surprise…that makes absolutely no sense. What is she asking to have figured out? Does she want to breach fully encrypted communications? This is called a hack or a backdoor. Improve information sharing between industry and government? This seems moot since virtually all the technology that our government uses comes from industry. Beyond that, we already have PRISM, the NSA internet spying and surveillance program. Of course, there is also CISA, the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act passed by Congress in October of 2015. Clearly, it is unrealistic for a Presidential candidate to be aware of current law.

"It doesn't do anybody any good if terrorists can move toward encrypted communication that no law enforcement agency can break into before or after," Clinton said. "There must be some way. I don't know enough about the technology to be able to say what it is, but I have a lot of confidence in our tech experts." In technology, there is no such thing as limitations beyond the straightforward cost. If the technology existed to backdoor or decrypt secure communications in a timely manner, the nefarious users would have the “open source” version shortly after the “white-hats” had invented it. It for this very reason that encryption is considered “good” when it would take too much time and computer power to decrypt it. This concept doesn’t discriminate whose content is encrypted.

"It doesn't do anybody any good if terrorists can move toward encrypted communication that no law enforcement agency can break into before or after," Clinton said. "There must be some way. I don't know enough about the technology to be able to say what it is, but I have a lot of confidence in our tech experts." This is effectively a “Trumpism:” proposing some wild or extreme idea and then merely believing that you don’t have to worry about the details, the experts will figure that part out.

Clearly, from inception to present day, the Democrats have some skewed ideas about the internet. Al Gore in the 1990’s pushed legislation to expand the ARPANET (forerunner of the internet). Despite being a noble effort, it did not give him the right to say “I took the initiative in creating the Internet.” (March, 1999) Nevertheless, we know that most politicians once given the microphone will say something self-serving, even if it means changing history.

More surprising in the midst of all the noise about unsecure email servers and Congressional hearings is that Hillary Clinton could still be so naïve about internet security and encryption.

It would be unfair to single out Ms. Clinton. One of her opponents on stage, former governor of Maryland Martin O’Malley delivered a vague meditation on the same subject. "The way things work in the modern era is actually to gather around a table and figure things out. With the new technologies, I believe the people creating these products have an obligation to come together with law enforcement to figure these things out." This is likely some pop culture image he recalls from a movie that has little or nothing to do with the real world and how leading edge and evolving technologies come to fruition. At least O’Malley’s comments had a folksy charm to them.

What none of these people seem to grasp is the basic nature of the internet. If something is able to be seen and read, it can likely been seen and read by all. If something is secured and encrypted, the intent is for it to be difficult to access. The same security that is available for government resources and content is essentially what is available for private or individual use. By association, if our government can break encryption and read private content, others will ultimately be able to do the same with government and law enforcement content. The result is that any door into data and content is a “back door.”

Under normal circumstances, it is easy to excuse the ramblings that come from a candidate’s mouth early in the election cycle. They often say things they would like to believe, but don’t actually know. Later in the process, as the field is whittled down, these same candidates will hire policy consultants to advise them on what can and cannot be said or done. Nevertheless, Hillary has spent 8 years in the White House claiming to be involved, more importantly, she spent 4 years as Secretary of State under President Obama. In such a position, it is hoped she would eventually learn what a secret is and what the techniques and challenges are to maintaining its privacy and integrity.

The notion of proposing a “Manhattan-like project” to ferret out the words and plans of those who wish to do us harm is ultimately deluded. The technology that drives the internet and secures its content is evolving at a pace best defined by Moore’s Law. In such a rapidly evolving landscape any counter technology would always be a day late and way too many dollars spent.

The only thing all this talk really proves, is how seriously out of touch with reality our potential aspiring national leaders really are. Perhaps, with such fast moving technological advances we shouldn’t worry about who our next president will be or of potential terrorist act. There is no doubt that the technology of our day is advancing at a phenomenal pace. The real fear may be our lack of understanding of the capabilities associated with the technologies that have come to dominate our world.

That could means that Hillary and Trump are actually distractions perpetuated by Skynet, and we are too preoccupied to notice.

Comments (0)                                                                                                                                                    [Add Comment]