Hillary Clinton

Clinton Is Not the Tech Privacy Candidate. Not Your Privacy Anyway.

Podesta leak acknowledges her 'instincts' are to accept law enforcement's claims on encryption access and surveillance.

|

Hillary Clinton
Bizu Tesfaye/Sipa USA/Newscom

It's incredibly obvious that neither Donald Trump nor Hillary Clinton are particularly savvy or even remotely articulate about cybersecurity, encryption, and other tech policy issues. It's probably too much to expect people of their ages and backgrounds to stay on top of such an ever-evolving, complicated web of concerns, so what matters here would ultimately be who they choose to help guide federal policies and what sort of principles undergird them (if any).

Amid the dump of hacked emails from Clinton campaign Chairman John Podesta are bits and pieces of discussion that help indicate her mindset on citizen privacy and the use of encryption to protect data. As Apple was fighting with the FBI earlier in the year over whether the government could force a private tech company to develop tools to defeat its own encryption, California Democratic Rep. Zoe Lofgren, a strong supporter of tech privacy and Fourth Amendment safeguards from unwarranted surveillance, communicated with the campaign. She was hoping that Clinton would take a stand opposing the FBI's attempts to draft Apple's cooperation via court order and wanted to speak with Clinton if she was thinking of taking the FBI's side. Lofgren supplied a copy of her statement rejecting the FBI's authority and the court's ruling against Apple, saying "It is astonishing that a court would consider it lawful to order that a private American company be commandeered for the creation of a new operating system in response."

Podesta's response was that Clinton and the campaign did not seem to want to get involved:

"I think we are inclined to stay out of this and push it back to Companies and USG to dialogue and resolve. Won't embrace FBI."

When a top politician appears to take an uninvolved stance in a conflict between the executive branch and private citizens or companies, don't mistake it as neutrality. It's deference to authority. As a candidate running to be in charge of the executive branch, "staying out of it" is really approval for the Department of Justice to push the issue to see what would happen.

Indeed, in a prior email communication last November, Podesta openly acknowledged Clinton's attitude of deference to authority here. In a very interesting email exchange, campaign strategist Luke Albee suggests that Clinton maybe learn from conservative Tea Party types who were concerned about mass surveillance and "big brother" government and potentially use those concerns against Trump. Albee wrote:

Trump (and others?) have called for registering Muslims. He has called for a federal domestic police force that will be focussed [sic] on arresting and deporting 11 million people. Other candidates are talking about separating immigrants by religion.

All of this is about building up and feeding the BIG BROTHER beast.

The Tea Party was born bc of the perception of government encroachment in peoples [sic] lives — and it really has always been the Rand Paul mantra: government wants to control your health care decisions. Government wants [to] register all your guns, which will ultimately lead to gun confiscation. Government wants the ability to murder its own citizens with drones (remember the Rand Paul filibuster on that one?). The Snowden stuff confirmed what many felt. . .the government was collecting vast troves of information on everyone.

At a certain point, I think HRC might bring together all the different strands (mostly Trumps) of expanding federal Big Brother government — and talk about how its [sic] possible to be safe without creating some kind of large and cumbersome and intrusive police state.

What a remarkable email within the Clinton campaign. Podesta's response:

Interesting. Her instincts are to buy some of the law enforcement arguments on crypto and Snowden type issues. So may be tough, but worth looking for an opening.

That's pretty telling, too. Ultimately the path Clinton has chosen to tread is to—as much as possible—not tread a path at all. In February, she was asked to weigh in on the Apple vs. FBI fight and what she would do if she were president at Watermark's Silicon Vally Conference for Women in Santa Clara, California. This was her word salad response:

Well, I've talked to some of the leaders in technology, some of the executives of these companies, and I think that's the way to start, a real conversation, where you say, look, here's our problem. If you were sitting in my seat, if all of a sudden some president said, okay, Mr. or Ms. X, we want you to be the head of the counter-terrorism or the new cyber warfare something that takes advantage of your expertise. So you're sitting in these meetings that the president and I and others have sat in and we can see the sequencing where we know people are in contact and where we have both human intelligence and some technology enabled intelligence and we know there is something going to happen and we're trying to figure out how to get through the door that has been locked.

So I think the conversation, rather than you don't understand privacy, and you don't understand security ought to be, okay, let's figure out how we're going to do this. So I don't have answer. I would be the first to say I don't have the answer. I think there are really strong, legitimate arguments on both sides. And what I would like to see is more of the kind of brainstorming that I've had the good fortune to do.

Well, at least she acknowledges she doesn't have the answer to the problem. That's actually a positive. But the larger concern is that her inclination to defer to authority here will lead to real-world outcomes where law enforcement under the executive branch pushes for whatever authority they can grab to collect information unless they're stopped by judges or lawmakers. There's not real ethical foundation here other than a vague stab at a "balance" that doesn't want to admit that there's an actual trade-off where security is subservient to privacy or vice-versa.

NEXT: WHO Worries Africans are Getting Too Fat

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Contrary to her own campaign’s attempts to paint her as old and incompetent rather than criminally negligient, Hillary’s not THAT un-tech-savvy.

    1. Look, Lenny Kravitz is a very attractive man, even a straight man can see.

      Still, [vomits and vomits and vomits]

    2. Hillary Clinton Donald Trump and Lena Dunham Rush Limbaugh Discuss Lenny Kravitz’s Katy Perry’s ‘Stuff’ in a Locker Room Fashion.

      Much better. Run with that. /Every editor-in-chief

      1. Can you prove it didn’t happen?
        – MSM

    3. I thought Hillary wasn’t interested in Kravitz’s stuff. Or, because he’s prettier than most women, she’s on board?

      1. She has to pretend to be heterosexual, otherwise the normals won’t vote for her.

    4. It’s kind of amazing that two women can engage in that much dick-sucking.The trans-people might have a point.

  2. focussed [sic]

    Focussed is perfectly acceptable.

  3. Just as her husband was not for your sexual privacy despoye making extraordinary claims for his own.

  4. Cyber privacy? You mean like having the door to your computer room closed or something?

    1. When you’re done you just need to, like, wipe it with a cloth.

  5. We’re suddenly talking about Hillary’s emails now just to stop the complaining from the comments section, right? Because we all know Reason is all-in for Hillary.

    1. Not until we get the libertarian case for Hillary article, they’re not.

    2. 103% of Reason contributors admitted that they will vote for Hillary.

      1. They didn’t actually admit to vote for Hillary but reading between the lines it becomes obvious. Furthermore at last count it was 110% because the Jacket is becoming more and more sentient.

        1. I see the Jacket more like Krang in TMNT– the Jacket is actually sentient and Nick’s just the meatsack the Jacket uses to move around.

    3. All in for Hill?

      Or following the Media Cool Kids like that one guy’s pestering little brother?

  6. Speaking of cyber security, I see Google has a “this is cyber-security month, click here for a two-minute cyber-security check-up” link on their homepage. I’m assuming clicking on the link is an automatic fail? I ain’t clicking on it if it’s Google wanting to run some sort of “security scan” scam on my computer.

    The reason I saw Google’s homepage though is I’m having a problem accessing wikipedia, the pages won’t load in my IE browser but they will if I switch to Firefox. I sometimes get a pop-up security warning that the security certificate for wikipedia is expired and it won’t let me go there. I thought maybe it was something to do with my proxy server so I switched it off and went straight to Google to try and access wikipedia but still no go on the IE. Anybody know what might be causing the problem with wikipedia not loading?

    1. Russians. Gotta be the Russians.

    2. 1) Stop using IE

      2) For expired certificates, browsers “SHOULD” let you add an exception for an expired cert. In Firefox, there used to be a way to click through and add an exception, but I think they’ve added some shit that makes it more difficult in recent versions.

      Instructions for adding exceptions

      1. I’m using an old netbook that works best with an older version of IE – Firefox is very slow loading, but Firefox doesn’t have a problem taking me to wikipedia. The odd thing about the IE pop-up about the certificate is that there’s no option to continue to the site and it only seems to be wikipedia that’s triggering it so I thought maybe it was something with wikipedia that it wasn’t accepting requests from proxy servers or out-of-date browser versions.

  7. I’m 58. I understand cyber, IA, CRC’s, Cross Domain, etc. How many users (regardless of age) of digital devices actually understand the inner workings of the security space surrounding their appliances? Maybe they know the words encryption and security, maybe they even have faint idea of what a DOS attack is really all about but interacting with FB, texting, and downloading apps doesn’t really qualify one to have the foggiest notion of digital security.

    Most of the stuff used by script kiddies was as likely written by some geeky boomer as a millennial.

    1. I don’t know if it was here or elsewhere I saw a link to an essay from an IT guy pointing out that kids these days really know nothing at all about computers. They know how to turn them on and pull up programs, but that’s it, they really have no idea how it all works because they’ve never had to deal with a buggy program the way older computer users did back in the day.

    1. NEEDZ MOAR SPINY PREHENSILE CLITDONGS OOZING BLACK ACID BILE!!!

    2. Finally! You gonna hook me up with a czar gig, brah?

      1. You kno it, brah.

  8. Ultimately the path Clinton has chosen to tread is to?as much as possible?not tread a path at all.

    Is that really any surprise, though? The woman doesn’t blow her own damn nose without consulting a focus group about it first.

  9. I am making 85 bucks hourly for working from home. I never thought that it was legit but my best friend is earning 10 thousand dollars a month by working online and she recommended me to try it. Try it out on following website,

    you have nothing to lose…> http://www.WebJob1.Com

  10. While coming to education, the technology has brought many advantages to students and as well as teachers. showbox For example, students can do their homework or assignment with ease and can complete it faster by using the Internet.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.