Obama promises statement on encryption before Xmas


#1

[Read the post]


Hillary Clinton accepts Democratic party nomination for president
#2

I’m worried. While Obama tends to be cleverer on tech policy than most of the rest of the political elite, he’s got a habit of bowing to the authorities when terrorist bogeymen are invoked.

At least I can be thankful he’s not Hillary this time out - with her, I don’t think there’d be a question.


#3

There are going to be so many boingers biting the bullet while they vote for Hillary that I expect a nationwide ammunition shortage.


#4

Agreed. He’s much more conservative in these types of decisions than one might think initially. In many ways more so than Bush v2 on WoT, corporate influence & sadly, civil liberties. I asked Google for an example n found this site for more reading for those so inclined. I haven’t read it myself, but the bumper above the seam seems to purport to discuss those topics, so certainly not an endorsement & YMMV.
While yes, each new president since RayGun has expanded executive powers, but I thought the Big O was going to try to put that genie back in the bottle but nope. Imagine Nixon with this much executive power… or FDR


#5

Aside from the “Hopefully we’ll manage to remember that the president doesn’t actually make laws” issue; the one nice thing about the probably-bad ‘statement’ is that Obama’s political opponents treat everything he does with irrational frothing rage; even when it’s exactly what they would have wanted.

If Obama expresses his concerns about the proliferation of encryption; even the sort of quislings who would line up to lick Comey’s boots will probably rush to get some before the sharia fascists can take it away.


#6

“Fulsome”. Yep, right there on the Pinker “most abused words” list that was posted a few days back.

Best and brightest, baby.


#7

This has been a surprise to exactly no one who paid attention to Senator Obama’s vote to retroactively legalize warrantless wiretapping. After earlier promising a filibuster against it. AFAICT nothing has changed since then.


#8

You know the old saying, “Fool me in 2008, shame on you, fool me in 2012, shame on me??”


#9

I’m pretty sure there is plenty of shame to go around… but yea, I’ll take another helping ; )


#10

So how again does the American government propose to replace functional cryptography for online payment and banking?

  • any cryptography with a “secret” key isn’t functional

#11

This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.