Fwd: [Cryptography] changing crypto policy? Not Deborah Ross
-- Forwarded message -- From: John Gilmore Date: Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 7:35 AM Subject: Re: [Cryptography] changing crypto policy? Not Deborah Ross To: lje...@gmail.com Cc: cryptogra...@metzdowd.com While current Congressional oversight of the intelligence agencies is irrelevant or actively harmful, Deborah Ross doesn't seem like the reformer that L. Jean Camp suggested she might be. Try Ross's National Security plans page here: https://www.deborahross.com/issues/national-security/keeping-americans-safe/ There she proposes lots of useless or harmful but "tough" measures. Here's the most relevant one for us: Strengthen our intelligence capabilities: When Republicans shutdown the federal government for 16 days in 2013, roughly 70% of our nation's intelligence personnel were off the job. These analysts are on the front lines of identifying and disrupting terrorist plots, and helping us learn about the inner workings of ISIS. They should have the resources they need and certainty that outside parties won't politicize or sabotage their operations. Ross's whole paragraph is deliberately misleading. During that government shutdown, all NSA and other classified personnel key to our military and anti-terrorism programs remained on duty. The list of such departments in each federal agency during the shutdown is archived here: https://archive-it.org/collections/3938 Here she says a tiny bit more about intelligence: https://www.deborahross.com/issues/national-security/ Protecting Americans is Deborah's top priority. She believes our national security is strongest when we use all the tools at our disposal: a modern military, the most sophisticated and capable negotiators, and an intelligence community that will stay one step ahead of our enemies. Doesn't sound like somebody whose first priority would be to terminate NSA's domestic spying, NSA interference with computer security, reform government secrecy, chop NSA's budget as punishment for past bad behavior, etc. A quick web search for "Deborah Ross" and "NSA" turned up exactly one article, which includes nothing from her or her aides that even addresses NSA, wiretaps or intelligence agencies. It's about her opponent Richard Burr being a big NSA-lover and working with Sen. Feinstein to build a better police state. Ross absolutely could have made mass surveillance one of her campaign issues, since her opponent is hip-deep in it, but she didn't: http://rare.us/story/one-of-the-nsas-biggest-cheerleaders-is-facing-a-tougher-than-expected-reelection/ Also, electing her would not get her onto the Intelligence committee. It would merely remove her opponent from it. If any Cryptography list member actually wants to vote for someone whose stated policy is to stop all NSA domestic wiretapping and "metadata" collection, skip Deborah Ross and vote for Gary Johnson for President. He has a clue on the issues that concern this mailing list: https://www.johnsonweld.com/personal_freedom https://www.johnsonweld.com/internet_freedom_and_security John PS: Recently leaked Podesta emails confirm that Ms. Clinton has no plans to improve anything on the NSA front: "Clinton won't budge on mass surveillance stance, leaked emails reveal" http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/clinton-wont-budge-mass-surveillance-stance-leaked-emails-reveal-1586175 ___ The cryptography mailing list cryptogra...@metzdowd.com http://www.metzdowd.com/mailman/listinfo/cryptography
Re: [Cryptography] changing crypto policy? Not Deborah Ross
My god... something cross posted from the crypto list?? But Juan says that list is MODERATED and only 'nerds' talk there ;) John > On Oct 17, 2016, at 11:22 AM, grarpamp wrote: > > -- Forwarded message -- > From: John Gilmore > Date: Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 7:35 AM > Subject: Re: [Cryptography] changing crypto policy? Not Deborah Ross > To: lje...@gmail.com > Cc: cryptogra...@metzdowd.com > > > While current Congressional oversight of the intelligence agencies is > irrelevant or actively harmful, Deborah Ross doesn't seem like the > reformer that L. Jean Camp suggested she might be. Try Ross's > National Security plans page here: > > https://www.deborahross.com/issues/national-security/keeping-americans-safe/ > > There she proposes lots of useless or harmful but "tough" measures. > Here's the most relevant one for us: > > Strengthen our intelligence capabilities: When Republicans shutdown > the federal government for 16 days in 2013, roughly 70% of our > nation's intelligence personnel were off the job. These analysts > are on the front lines of identifying and disrupting terrorist > plots, and helping us learn about the inner workings of ISIS. They > should have the resources they need and certainty that outside > parties won't politicize or sabotage their operations. > > Ross's whole paragraph is deliberately misleading. During that > government shutdown, all NSA and other classified personnel key to our > military and anti-terrorism programs remained on duty. The list of > such departments in each federal agency during the shutdown is > archived here: > > https://archive-it.org/collections/3938 > > Here she says a tiny bit more about intelligence: > > https://www.deborahross.com/issues/national-security/ > > Protecting Americans is Deborah's top priority. She believes our > national security is strongest when we use all the tools at our > disposal: a modern military, the most sophisticated and capable > negotiators, and an intelligence community that will stay one step > ahead of our enemies. > > Doesn't sound like somebody whose first priority would be to terminate > NSA's domestic spying, NSA interference with computer security, reform > government secrecy, chop NSA's budget as punishment for past bad > behavior, etc. A quick web search for "Deborah Ross" and "NSA" turned > up exactly one article, which includes nothing from her or her aides > that even addresses NSA, wiretaps or intelligence agencies. It's > about her opponent Richard Burr being a big NSA-lover and working with > Sen. Feinstein to build a better police state. Ross absolutely could > have made mass surveillance one of her campaign issues, since her > opponent is hip-deep in it, but she didn't: > > > http://rare.us/story/one-of-the-nsas-biggest-cheerleaders-is-facing-a-tougher-than-expected-reelection/ > > Also, electing her would not get her onto the Intelligence committee. > It would merely remove her opponent from it. > > If any Cryptography list member actually wants to vote for someone > whose stated policy is to stop all NSA domestic wiretapping and > "metadata" collection, skip Deborah Ross and vote for Gary Johnson for > President. He has a clue on the issues that concern this mailing list: > > https://www.johnsonweld.com/personal_freedom > https://www.johnsonweld.com/internet_freedom_and_security > >John > > PS: Recently leaked Podesta emails confirm that Ms. Clinton has no > plans to improve anything on the NSA front: > > "Clinton won't budge on mass surveillance stance, leaked emails reveal" > > http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/clinton-wont-budge-mass-surveillance-stance-leaked-emails-reveal-1586175 > ___ > The cryptography mailing list > cryptogra...@metzdowd.com > http://www.metzdowd.com/mailman/listinfo/cryptography
Re: [Cryptography] changing crypto policy? Not Deborah Ross
On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 21:54:54 -0400 John Newman wrote: > My god... something cross posted from the crypto list?? > > But Juan says that list is MODERATED and only 'nerds' talk > there ;) Yes, that list is fully censored. I don't find your jesting(?) to be too funny. One wonders what people who make fun of free speech are really thinking...
Re: [Cryptography] changing crypto policy? Not Deborah Ross
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 18 October 2016 20:14:34 GMT+01:00, juan wrote: >On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 21:54:54 -0400 >John Newman wrote: > >> My god... something cross posted from the crypto list?? >> >> But Juan says that list is MODERATED and only 'nerds' talk >> there ;) > > > Yes, that list is fully censored. I don't find your jesting(?) > to be too funny. One wonders what people who make fun of free > speech are really thinking... They use ridicule so that people self-censor for fear of looking like a fool. Same as whats been done to privacy - "what you hiding?" -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- iQI7BAEBCgAlHhxvc2h3bSA8b3Nod21Ab3Blbm1haWxib3gub3JnPgUCWAZ1yQAK CRAqeAcYSpG1iLq3D/wIjEqgde/yANPF6I1Z83QBlCiavGaCWmLAyL66xDWHsgNt 5G4tJjtQUpjRwHi3jaXwwd4nuxsrucZmmZ1/7HhpcVm0o8xAcJ97Wx5PU7EHdQ5q bpKGrGYl2Ou1vY0mwKsmwQbe6KyfyMSPZJ8/vlaITA2wzwzx4OvmZsvDA9b7X3Vh y22MDyc/jVOcQ/uQnUnpztIdAjlN/5A2qSCldIAa5StfyEGZ5JmErRmmD254Uk0/ 6pw3upfnW+eLZC6pBZq5V5O5rpOhTvuzYlp1Tv5PmM+sb/kgJlUcKmW/oQ/TjgDH u/C2V/zP0ccpbZ4DHcu1lKJf3Zn3XSBEnt4+3Z2t1fQXS4Z8ZDoVI4NSxJWoTeDe 6VnCHf+mTYXff5+LIsoZ4MXAVzAvLLaEBlZyPy/wDYrfj/Cg+gg53KEQ8eNNl0oa TpD5/L2Jx3ImJnILtGwFtB8E15kWNcHG5EsHd0Fig/TayteOp6XoLiTlZBd0cjmL k0Uh+CGP7/1CBsj9Zcn0GDVEEVPlWhGbIeTdzpDxsWN+CETZ3W49hDCxnRuJSJ6V gOGm0/Q6jkxG8r+IgLPa1WkAA9qD9obLtC6uYo1gf6J85ttZtVFnSHgcOXJcZbKP kMXeqnaz3xysLEWm3xajR2oqwAXtGeG6jxB4wK22omZ05asS/4PB0f2Fl8r4lQ== =YZTG -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [Cryptography] changing crypto policy? Not Deborah Ross
On Tue, 18 Oct 2016 20:19:52 +0100 oshwm wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA512 > > On 18 October 2016 20:14:34 GMT+01:00, juan > wrote: > >On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 21:54:54 -0400 > >John Newman wrote: > > > >> My god... something cross posted from the crypto list?? > >> > >> But Juan says that list is MODERATED and only 'nerds' talk > >> there ;) > > > > > > Yes, that list is fully censored. I don't find your > > jesting(?) to be too funny. One wonders what people who make > > fun of free speech are really thinking... > > They use ridicule so that people self-censor for fear of looking like > a fool. > > Same as whats been done to privacy - "what you hiding?" I would certainly agree, but if I did, I'll be accussed of 'circle jerking'? haha =P > > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- > > iQI7BAEBCgAlHhxvc2h3bSA8b3Nod21Ab3Blbm1haWxib3gub3JnPgUCWAZ1yQAK > CRAqeAcYSpG1iLq3D/wIjEqgde/yANPF6I1Z83QBlCiavGaCWmLAyL66xDWHsgNt > 5G4tJjtQUpjRwHi3jaXwwd4nuxsrucZmmZ1/7HhpcVm0o8xAcJ97Wx5PU7EHdQ5q > bpKGrGYl2Ou1vY0mwKsmwQbe6KyfyMSPZJ8/vlaITA2wzwzx4OvmZsvDA9b7X3Vh > y22MDyc/jVOcQ/uQnUnpztIdAjlN/5A2qSCldIAa5StfyEGZ5JmErRmmD254Uk0/ > 6pw3upfnW+eLZC6pBZq5V5O5rpOhTvuzYlp1Tv5PmM+sb/kgJlUcKmW/oQ/TjgDH > u/C2V/zP0ccpbZ4DHcu1lKJf3Zn3XSBEnt4+3Z2t1fQXS4Z8ZDoVI4NSxJWoTeDe > 6VnCHf+mTYXff5+LIsoZ4MXAVzAvLLaEBlZyPy/wDYrfj/Cg+gg53KEQ8eNNl0oa > TpD5/L2Jx3ImJnILtGwFtB8E15kWNcHG5EsHd0Fig/TayteOp6XoLiTlZBd0cjmL > k0Uh+CGP7/1CBsj9Zcn0GDVEEVPlWhGbIeTdzpDxsWN+CETZ3W49hDCxnRuJSJ6V > gOGm0/Q6jkxG8r+IgLPa1WkAA9qD9obLtC6uYo1gf6J85ttZtVFnSHgcOXJcZbKP > kMXeqnaz3xysLEWm3xajR2oqwAXtGeG6jxB4wK22omZ05asS/4PB0f2Fl8r4lQ== > =YZTG > -END PGP SIGNATURE- >
Re: [Cryptography] changing crypto policy? Not Deborah Ross
On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 08:19:52PM +0100, oshwm wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA512 > > On 18 October 2016 20:14:34 GMT+01:00, juan wrote: > >On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 21:54:54 -0400 > >John Newman wrote: > > > >> My god... something cross posted from the crypto list?? > >> > >> But Juan says that list is MODERATED and only 'nerds' talk > >> there ;) > > > > > > Yes, that list is fully censored. I don't find your jesting(?) > > to be too funny. One wonders what people who make fun of free > > speech are really thinking... > > They use ridicule so that people self-censor for fear of looking like a fool. > > Same as whats been done to privacy - "what you hiding?" The simple one line response: I don't have to be doing anything wrong, to want my privacy. Now go kick some establishment arse already.
