I think Washington has changed Obama more than Obama changed Washington. He's spent seven years in the craziest bubble in America surrounded by people being paid millions to distort his worldview one way or another.
A while back he advised some kids in College to never type anything into a computer if they want it to remain private. For him, it probably seems completely reasonable. I doubt he's touched a keyboard since he became president. His daughters are the only teenagers in America who've never been near Snapchat (the Secret Service will keep it that way). And he's literally surrounded by security officers and spooks everywhere he goes. They manage every interaction he has so you can imagine their worldview is going to affect him.
I'm not trying to make excuses for him. He's so completely off the deep end nowadays (between this and TPP) that it's heartbreaking as a long time supporter. I hope he leaves the presidency, leaves Washington and spends a few years thinking about what went wrong before writing his memoirs. It would be an amazing insight into the corrosive influence of Washington on a person's integrity.
> I hope he leaves the presidency, leaves Washington and spends a few years thinking about what went wrong before writing his memoirs.
No doubt he will. But let's stay focused on the debate for now. He's still in office. There's still time to share facts with him.
He says he has a digital services team. Who holds those positions currently?
And who are his technology advisors? What are they saying on this issue? What have they shared with Obama?
From Obama's remarks, it sounds like he treats the digital services team more as a toolset, rather than a team of trusted advisors.
EDIT: The next PCAST (President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology) meeting will be on March 25 and webcast here [1]. No need to sign up, just visit that page on the date to view. I suggest we all watch this and submit questions to their group in advance.
They meet every other month. The last meeting was on January 15, which predates Comey's open letter to the public (Feb 21) about the San Bernardino case, so they have not yet publicly discussed encryption in light of what's happened since Comey's letter.
I have hundreds of bookmarks in chrome. I have so many bookmarks that I've essentially stopped making new ones because the back log is simply too large.
That speech I bookmarked. Despite the terrible formatting that speech is a work of art applicable to every human being who holds power, whether it's POTUS or the office manager.
I'd recommend Pinboard.in. If you pay for an account with Bookmark Archive, it will also save a permanent copy of the bookmarks so that you can read them even if the original goes down, and provides full text search over them. There's a nice "Save Pinboard Bookmark" that you can add as a Bookmarklet. Lastly, it has a flag for "Read Later" if you like tracking that intention.
It is excellent for solving the information craving that goes, "I could have sworn that I read something about that...", and then actually finding it later, sometimes years later, in appropriate need. I don't use that capability very often, but I love the feeling that I have a permanent archive of all this information.
The problem with "adjusting your browser" is that this requires creating a default style which is at odds with virtually every other site.
Which points to a significant problem with the Web: one reason we're inundated with crap styles is that the browser defaults are crap.
If the W3C and browser vendors set sane margins, padding, font sizes, etc., at least we could fall back to these rather than deal with the crap of current website design.
But the defaults are crap, and designers try to "improve" on them, and ....
That said, unstyled HTML (if that's what this is, I can't inspect the page) remains better in most cases than styled pages.
Let's take a moment of deep appreciation for President Obama's decision to not panic after the San Bernadino shooting, reinstate color terror alert codes, spark a ground invasion of Syria, or in any other way overreact.
For a brief interlude in American history, we had a president that didn't capitalize on terror attacks politically, or generally set a tone of paranoia and fear.
We almost never say it. I want to say it. As someone who first became politically aware during the post 9/11 Bush era, it's really nice to have an administration in the White House that isn't trying to scare us.
We wouldn't live like that in a Trump administration. We would live in fear.
"SCOTT SHANE: Well, five years ago, there were—there was a question about what to do as Gaddafi’s forces approached Benghazi. The Europeans and the Arab League were calling for action. No one really knew what the outcome would be, but there was certainly a very serious threat to a large number of civilians in Benghazi. But, you know, the U.S. was still involved in two big wars, and the sort of heavyweights in the Obama administration were against getting involved—Robert Gates, the defensive secretary; Joe Biden, the vice president; Tom Donilon, the national security adviser.
And Secretary Clinton had been meeting with representatives of Britain, France and the Arab countries. And she sort of essentially called in from Paris and then from Cairo, and she ended up tipping the balance and essentially convincing President Obama, who later described this as a 51-49 decision, to join the other countries in the coalition to bomb Gaddafi’s forces."
No, he just sanctions low-key drone strikes in countries we're not even at war with keeping a hushed public content. Just listen to his SXSW speech. I think you see the real Obama showing through there, and no, it is not an idealist who was corrupted by Washington. He is slick as they come in Washington.
Better that and kill some terrorists than send an entire army for the same terrorists. Much more efficient and safe for everybody, including the country where the drone is used. Better a drone than an army.
I am not against the strategic use of drones vs. putting boots on the ground. I am questioning the number of countries we have used drones in. A lot of questions are also being raised about the targets being "terrorists", and I am not talking about an accidental drone strike at a wedding of civilians, but the public's blind acceptance that we are indeed getting the 'bad guys'. I am not so sure the ratio of bad guys to civilians is as high as reported. Are you, and what's your evidence?
This recent debate has quite literally centered on his administration using the San Bernardino shootings as leverage to force Apple to break iPhone's encryption. It's the main reason this whole discussion has the profile level it does.
He's asking to strike a balance in a court case. The tone, the actions, are so incredibly measured. Even though I disagree with them. And let's face it, iPhone encryption is weak encryption, with a single point of failure, the Apple signing key.
In comparison, six weeks after 9/11 we got the entire PATRIOT act rammed through, and the current NSA domestic panopticon put into place illegally and in secret.
And the administration is making it's arguments openly, we are not being manipulated by the general climate and context.
We aren't being made to feel afraid in the way we were in those dark years. We are not being told to buy duct tape and plastic sheeting to seal doors and windows in case of biological or chemical attack. The administration is not making a big show of deploying missile batteries in DC, while the Terror Alert is raised another shade, all based on "chatter".
We had a Vice-President say we are going to have to "work the dark side", and he meant torture. And we did, in dark dungeons on the far side of the world.
We started to torture, and we all have to live with seeing torture a regular fixture in our entertainment. That wasn't the case in the same way before the Bush administration normalized the practice. Obama ended this inhumanity on his first day in office.
When I see how far reaching the changes to our culture were, when I see how it's percolated, when I see it in Hostel, Game of Thrones, or in the far more radical Scandal, which is actually honest about the sadistic motivations behind torture, I wince and mourn what we lost as Americans, and I curse the name of Dick Cheney.
We were, all of us, debased. Even our culture and entertainment was debased.
And the open source, lone wolf style of ISIS has a far greater potential to be exploited to cause mass hysteria. The fact that it isn't is a refreshing departure from what I fear is the norm in American politics.
The entire stance, attitude and tone from Obama makes me feel secure. Because I'm far more afraid of government overreach and repression than any terrorist group.
Watching Trump, hearing Chris Christie call this WW III, it gives me terrible flashbacks to a time I am glad is over.
"And let's assume that we were to send 50,000 troops into Syria -- what happens when there's a terrorist attack generated from Yemen? Do we then send more troops into there? Or Libya perhaps? Or if there's a terrorist network that's operating anywhere else in North Africa or in Southeast Asia?
> And let's face it, iPhone encryption is weak encryption, with a single point of failure, the Apple signing key.
So what? The underlying debate is whether or not the DOJ should be allowed to require phone manufacturers to guarantee they can decrypt phone data when served with a warrant.
You can rally for Apple to make a more secure phone all you want. That is a separate issue. It doesn't change the fact that the DOJ is willing to do everything it can to get access to all phones through the courts or Congress. They don't care how it happens, they just want it.
It's not about one phone, it's not even just about the phones the DOJ currently has waiting to be decrypted. It's about every phone in the world. The DOJ knows this, but they can't say that because it is part of their position to argue that this is only about one phone.
This is politics. These are lawyers. They will say anything that they think will convince a judge, Congress or the American people to win them to what they believe is the correct side. That's how our system works.
They're not conspiring to do evil. They just don't have all the facts. And even if they are conspiring to do evil, our course should be the same. We should educate each other about how encryption works, and how legislation requiring backdoors would actually make us all less safe on balance than having no backdoors at all.
The difference between Bush's (and Congress's) response to 9/11 and Obama's response to San Bernadino were as different in scale as 9/11 was to San Bernadino. The last time something happened that was a comparable scale to 9/11, the US responded by inventing, and then using, nuclear weapons.
Trump would make you pine for the days of George W. Bush. I think we took for granted the fact that Bush did things to smooth bigotry rather than incite it, like publicly declaring that Islam is a religion of peace and taking care to distinguish al-Qaeda from Islam in general. I think rather than pinning these things on the President we should take a look at the media, the rest of the government, and most importantly the public. Like it or not, the nationally televised murder-by-airliner of 3,000 people is going to incite panic, hatred, overreaction, and fear to a degree that not even the most resolute President can control.
I have (from afar) also witnessed the Bush presidency and regarding tone of voice and speeches, Obama was the far better diplomat and seemed very concerned with humanitarian causes.
I suppose we should also be appreciative he hasn't instituted gulags... that we know of anyway. But that's really beside the point for this discussion.
I think Obama had that in his character years before he even ran for President, so I think it is an easy out to say he was corrupted by the system in Washington. Basic character doesn't just do a 180. Granted, your ideals may be softened by coming up against those who oppose them, but they do not reverse and hide under the covers. All politicians promise many beautiful things, but they have their agendas. Under Obama drone strikes have multiplied in several nations we are not even at war with, and stayed out of the news for the most part, and he has not been made accountable in the slightest. Through his representatives it has been made clear that he wants Snowden to return and face espionage charges. Even if that is the way to face the government, he did not offer any of his take on it to say otherwise. I am very untrusting of most, if not all, politicians, since I see it is a game for people to gain and feel powerful. I do not idealize candidates in the slightest. Trump polarizes people, and I do not like him in the slightest; I know where he stands though. With Obama his rhetoric and his actions are not in sync.
> It would be an amazing insight into the corrosive influence of Washington on a person's integrity.
That's going on the assumption that he had integrity in the first place and I'm no longer immune to considering the possibility that he did not and just played the voters for all it was worth.
For instance: someone with integrity would have returned an un-deserved Nobel peace prize.
Quoting "Obama said he was "surprised" and "deeply humbled" by the award. He stated that he does not feel he deserved the award,[14][15] and that he did not feel worthy of the company the award would place him in."
But usually I don't agree with it, in Obama's case I do.
It's not as if he brought lasting peace to some place that's been on fire for the last 3 decades, besides the prize was awarded way too early in his first term for him to have time enough to accomplish such a thing in the first place (after only 9 months).
My personal view on this is that he mostly received it because he wasn't Bush and they were trying to shame him into doing the right thing (which may have had a point) but I don't think that worked out too well.
The big international war issue from 2003 to 2008 was the US invasion and occupation of Iraq.
Enter Barack Obama, a candidate who campaigns vigorously on trying to get America out of Iraq and trying to limit or even undo some of the damage America inflicted on itself during that war (not to mention Iraq and its people).
Things have not gone all that well. But, when I imagine what would have happened if McCain had been elected, I conclude that things would have gone even worse.
What other candidate was pushing as vigorously for de-escalating and militarily disengaging from Iraq as Obama was? Hillary Clinton??
Where would we be on this particular issue if Senator Obama had not decided to run for president -- if he had just left it all to the existing establishment candidates?
I'm not so sure about all this. Bernie's been in Washington for decades as a Congressman, so he's been exposed to the same stuff, and his worldview is completely different from Obama's. Before he was elected, Obama had very little experience in Washington; he didn't even serve a full Senate term, and mostly voted "present". He just told us what we wanted to hear, and didn't have much of a record backing up his rhetoric. Hillary, by contrast, has a lengthy record, but it backs up all the worst actions that Obama has shown, but worse. Bernie has an even lengthier record but unlike Hillary there's no indication of corruption and his record is pretty much all good from a liberal perspective.
Note that Bernie and Hillary have both said they believe middle ground can be sought on this issue.
As strange as it may sound, the Clintons did the most for the pro-encryption side of this debate. Former President Clinton passed CALEA, which TechDirt points out applies to "manufacturers and providers of telecommunications support services" [1]. Also from CALEA,
> (1) Design of features and systems configurations. This subchapter does not authorize any law enforcement agency or office
> (a) to require any specific design of equipment, facilities, services, features, or system configurations to be adopted by any provider of a wire or electronic communication service, any manufacturer of telecommunications equipment, or any provider of telecommunications support services;
> (b) to prohibit the adoption of any equipment, facility, service, or feature by any provider of a wire or electronic communication service, any manufacturer of telecommunications equipment, or any provider of telecommunications support services.
I believe the judge in the San Bernardino case will point to this to deny the DOJ's request to use the All Writs Act to compel Apple to write the special version of the OS. At the very least, CALEA is a strong statement that Congress has already decided that they will not pass laws requiring Apple and others to put backdoors in their phones. That doesn't mean the debate is over, however. Many people still do not understand encryption technology and will blame technologists for standing in the way of legislation that they perceive would have saved us from certain terrorist attacks.
Although Bernie has said he's against surveillance, he and many of his most vocal supporters remain uninformed about encryption. I tried posting a couple times in the Sanders subreddit, calling for Sanders to take a stronger position in support of end-to-end encryption [2]. The response was he can't take a position on this because it isn't a major issue. I think that time is fast approaching. Obama hasn't let up, and obviously neither will technologists. It's difficult for a politician or law enforcement official to tell the population that they can't track all communications in the manner they used to be able to, and on the other hand, we technologists cannot simply ask math to stop working.
>As strange as it may sound, the Clintons did the most for the pro-encryption side of this debate. Former President Clinton passed CALEA
Huh? You must be too young to remember the Clinton presidency, but Clinton's administration made a huge push to force everyone to use the "Clipper" chip for encryption, which would have both mandated a specific type of (not-so-strong) encryption and given the government the keys for it through key-escrow. We're really lucky that Clinton couldn't get that one through Congress, but to claim that the Clintons are pro-encryption is being completely ignorant about history. They're only pro-key-escrowed encryption.
I didn't say the Clintons were pro-encryption. I said, "Oddly enough, they did the most for this side of the debate".
Maybe that's inaccurate, in that they probably weren't responsible for the exact language that comes to Apple's rescue in CALEA, however Clinton did sign it.
Anyway, my point was, in a thread about the iPhone case, in response to a comment with a user praising Bernie Sanders, that Bernie has not said anything different about encryption than Obama or Clinton, and that's it. That's my whole point. I am not making this political, I'm just sharing facts. Of course we know Hillary won't do jack to protect strong encryption. I don't think Sanders will support it either, based on what he's said so far.
I find your train of thought to be rather belittling and infantilizing of a man who, by all accounts, is quite brilliant (regardless of views on his politics, it's a commonly held position). Now, sure, people are affected by the circumstances in which they live, but you've framed it as though Obama has been hoodwinked by nefarious and persistent forces. Personally, I disagree with President Obama's crypto policies, but I don't assume that he came to his positions out of anything but a thoughtful reading of intelligence briefings and alike.
> I think Washington has changed Obama more than Obama changed Washington. He's spent seven years in the craziest bubble in America surrounded by people being paid millions to distort his worldview one way or another.
I completely agree, I bet it's not a great job most of the time and a really different and isolated world.
>there will probably not be a single American that thinks a bomb proof car in a exaggeration.
Everyone in the world knows the President's car is a mobile battle fortress. I saw an entire show about it on the History Channel.
That's not because he's detached from the people, though, it's an unfortunate necessity of office. The last time an American President rode around in public in a convertible, it didn't end well for him.
A while back he advised some kids in College to never type anything into a computer if they want it to remain private. For him, it probably seems completely reasonable. I doubt he's touched a keyboard since he became president. His daughters are the only teenagers in America who've never been near Snapchat (the Secret Service will keep it that way). And he's literally surrounded by security officers and spooks everywhere he goes. They manage every interaction he has so you can imagine their worldview is going to affect him.
I'm not trying to make excuses for him. He's so completely off the deep end nowadays (between this and TPP) that it's heartbreaking as a long time supporter. I hope he leaves the presidency, leaves Washington and spends a few years thinking about what went wrong before writing his memoirs. It would be an amazing insight into the corrosive influence of Washington on a person's integrity.