[kenberg]

 barmar, on 2016-April-01, 09:30, said:

There's no such thing as total security. The issue is how much effort it takes to break the security. The history of encryption and code breaking is a constant game of cat-and-mouse, where the code breakers develop techniques to break the encryption, and the cryptographers improve their coding, and this repeats.

I will buy that, but it leaves some questions.

1. The reason the gov went to court to get Apple's help: It has been asserted that this was part of some larger game, that really the gov was capable of cracking this phone on its own, they wanted to put Apple in a spot. Could be, but the simple explanation is that they asked for help because they needed it, and I am inclined to accept that.

2. It is worrisome that some patriotic hacker (if that is what happened) called up and said "No problem, I'll show you how". People lose cell phones or have them stolen, and not all hackers are so helpful.

Anyway, here is what I get out of this: The gov was unable to crack into this on its own. There are others out there who are better at this. This does not make me particularly comfortable. I don't expect this situation to get better.

[hrothgar]

 kenberg, on 2016-April-01, 10:57, said:

Anyway, here is what I get out of this: The gov was unable to crack into this on its own. There are others out there who are better at this. This does not make me particularly comfortable. I don't expect this situation to get better.

The FBI is not the same as "the government". The NSA does not always work and play well with other government agencies and the FBI is far from competent wrt computer crime.

Even if the FBI could have broken into the phone, I suspect that the value of the of precent far exceeded being able to get immediate access to the data on the cell phone.

[billw55]

 kenberg, on 2016-April-01, 08:38, said:

I can fantasize. Maybe the following: After they recovered the cell phone some bright guy said "They will figure we have this and close down everything that links to it. Why don't we announce that we can't get into it, ask for a court order which Apple will resist? Surely they will believe us when we say that we cannot get in so they will leave everything in place while we crack in and get them." That could be what happened, but I doubt it.

My own theory is that Apple did in fact give them the key they asked for. They just made a private agreement with the government that announcement would be to the contrary. This way everybody gets what they want: the FBI gets in the phone, while Apple gets a vanishing lawsuit and a PR win.

[kenberg]

 billw55, on 2016-April-01, 12:59, said:

My own theory is that Apple did in fact give them the key they asked for. They just made a private agreement with the government that announcement would be to the contrary. This way everybody gets what they want: the FBI gets in the phone, while Apple gets a vanishing lawsuit and a PR win.

Cynical, cynical, cynical. Probably a good recommendation for believing it.

[barmar]

 kenberg, on 2016-April-01, 10:57, said:

1. The reason the gov went to court to get Apple's help: It has been asserted that this was part of some larger game, that really the gov was capable of cracking this phone on its own, they wanted to put Apple in a spot. Could be, but the simple explanation is that they asked for help because they needed it, and I am inclined to accept that.

There's been lots written about the government's motives in this whole thing, with widely varying opinions, and I suspect we'll never really know for sure. I also admit that I haven't read too much of it, I'm basing my comments mostly on what I know about encryption and code breaking technology as an experienced software engineer, but not an expert in those fields.

I think they were looking for an easy way to solve this particular case, which would also provide a reusable solution they could use in the future. Most code-breaking requires significant effort and breaking into one phone wouldn't get you into others, so you'd have to go through the same, hard work every time.

It's like when Alan Turing's team at Bletchley Park programmed their computer to decrypt the Enigma code -- that was a general solution they could use as long as the German's continued using Enigma. Until then, human code breakers had to attempt to crack each message by itself.

[kenberg]

 barmar, on 2016-April-01, 16:32, said:

There's been lots written about the government's motives in this whole thing, with widely varying opinions, and I suspect we'll never really know for sure. I also admit that I haven't read too much of it, I'm basing my comments mostly on what I know about encryption and code breaking technology as an experienced software engineer, but not an expert in those fields.

I think they were looking for an easy way to solve this particular case, which would also provide a reusable solution they could use in the future. Most code-breaking requires significant effort and breaking into one phone wouldn't get you into others, so you'd have to go through the same, hard work every time.

It's like when Alan Turing's team at Bletchley Park programmed their computer to decrypt the Enigma code -- that was a general solution they could use as long as the German's continued using Enigma. Until then, human code breakers had to attempt to crack each message by itself.

This makes things a little clearer to me, or at least maybe so. Let's see. I could give this more thought, or I could pour a glass of wine. Hmmm. That popping noise you hear is a hint.

A key point, if I follow you, is that the gov would not be able to "just do it". They could eventually do it, providing the whole thing didn't self-destruct after a time interval of not being in touch with its terrorist owner. So they were hoping for help, and they were hoping that this help would lead to further help.

I can well imagine that the gov could do it sooner or later, that help would be welcome, and ongoing help would be very welcome. I took earlier comments to be suggesting that the gov really didn't need help at all, they were just pretending so that they could wrestle Apple into a position that they liked. Once we accept that it would be difficult and time consuming, and I would say chancy, to do one phone, then it makes sense.


Anyway, I am about ready to let this be, whatever it is. I agree that we are unlikely to ever know what all went into this. Can it bring up any useful questions? Maybe.

[kenberg]

Just a general late night question. Can anyone recall a comparable situation in a presidential race? This isn't the way I recall Goldwater/Rockefeller for example. We expect tough fights, of course. There is a lot at stake. But it seems as if many Republican stalwarts loathe Donald Trump. They don't simply oppose him, they cannot stand him. I can't recall it ever being like this. Ok, 1968 was very weird. But this weirdness is different.

They made a huge mistake insisting early on that everyone agree to support the eventual nominee.

[PassedOut]

Dilbert weighs in

Quote

Since last August, in fact, when many were calling Trump’s entry a clown candidacy, the “Dilbert” cartoonist was already declaring The Donald a master in the powers of persuasion who would undoubtedly rise in the polls. And last week, Adams began blogging about how Trump can rhetorically dismantle Clinton’s candidacy next.

Adams, mind you, is not endorsing Trump or supporting his politics. (“I don’t think my political views align with anybody,” he tells The Post’s Comic Riffs, “not even another human being.”) And he is not saying that Trump would be the best president. What the Bay Area-based cartoonist recognizes, he says, is the careful art behind Trump’s rhetorical techniques. And The Donald, he says, is playing his competitors like a fiddle — before beating them like a drum.

Most simply put: Adams believes Trump will win because he’s “a master persuader.”

[y66]

 billw55, on 2016-April-01, 12:59, said:

My own theory is that Apple did in fact give them the key they asked for. They just made a private agreement with the government that announcement would be to the contrary. This way everybody gets what they want: the FBI gets in the phone, while Apple gets a vanishing lawsuit and a PR win.

Would not bet against your theory. There's no way this was discussed by Apple management. But smart people don't always discuss stuff with their managers and this was a smart way to temporarily resolve the standoff.

[Winstonm]

 kenberg, on 2016-April-01, 19:51, said:

Can anyone recall a comparable situation in a presidential race?

On this planet?

[kenberg]

 Winstonm, on 2016-April-01, 23:27, said:

On this planet?

Or we can bring in The Martian Chronicles if you like.

[hrothgar]

 kenberg, on 2016-April-02, 07:26, said:

Or we can bring in The Martian Chronicles if you like.

It would probably be more accessible to Blackshoes whose entire social and political understand seem derived from 50s science fiction.

[kenberg]

I am going to try something a little brash. The link below is from the "hijack" thread, but will say how I think it applies to out current polical chaos.

 y66, on 2016-April-02, 08:06, said:

From Angela Merkel's Unpopular Goodness

I will pull out [most of] the section Y quotes:

Quote

WHEN I returned to Berlin recently after a few months away, a friend asked me to try a new Chinese restaurant in Kreuzberg, a hip multiethnic neighborhood in the city. "It's close to the subway station Kottbusser Tor," he texted. "But take a cab, otherwise it's too dangerous."I would have thought he was joking, but he is not the type. I asked the cabdriver, a young man of Turkish origin. Had Kottbusser Tor suddenly become a no-go zone? To my shock, he replied, "Yes, now that all these people from North Africa are here it has become really dangerous."

I got out of the cab and looked around. Tourists strolling, a few people on bicycles in spite of the cold, women in head scarves pushing strollers. Had the city changed? It looked the same to me. But my friend is not prone to hysteria, and the cabdriver didn't seem as if he was either, so the friendly scene suddenly seemed ominous.

The area in question is a refugee area. The writer's friend, and the cab driver, regard it as a dangerous area. The writer does not regard his friend as given to hysteria, and, although he of course did not know the cab driver, he did not appear to be given to hysteria either.


Now to the U.S. I would be very happy if the phrase "politically correct" was never again uttered. As far as I can tell, it has no meaning, or maybe it has several constantly changing meanings. But there is often disrespect for people who protect themselves through intuitive judgment. Most likely neither the writer's friend nor the cabdriver has researched the recent crime history of the area. If challenged in a debate to prove that the area is dangerous, they would come up short. Still, they see it as dangerous and they use caution.


I see the use of intuitive judgment as an extremely valuable skill. It keeps us alive. I think I have mentioned the first time I was in Philadelphia. I had gone to the touristy exhibits, I had had dinner, I was out walking about with no particular destination in mind. Then I thought "Uh oh". Everyone about was white, it wasn't even all that rundown, but I decided it would be best to do an about face so I did. I can't prove this was right or even explain it, but I turned around. The mistakes I most regret are those where I have ignored this intuitive response.

It has become popular to explain such responses as irrational and bigoted. Usually it is designated as somethingphobia. When I was young I was a bit, maybe more than a bit, acrophobic so I understand what a phobia is. The accusations of somethingphobia are frequently off base, I think.


At any rate, if you tell someone who is trying his best to lead his own life safely and mind his own business that he is a somethingphobic bigot, you don't endear yourself to him. And if you are running for office, you don't get his vote.

I wouldn't vote for Donald Trump if you waterboarded me. But he is getting more votes than I or most people ever expected. I think my comments above are part of the explanation for this.

[y66]

From Bill Clinton Says He Regrets Showdown With Black Lives Matter Protesters

Quote

Former President Bill Clinton said Friday that he regretted drowning out the chants of black protesters at a rally in Philadelphia the day before, when he issued an aggressive defense of his administration’s impact on black families. His reaction thrust a debate about the 1990s into the center of his wife’s presidential campaign, one that has focused heavily on issues of race and criminal justice.

“I know those young people yesterday were just trying to get good television,” Mr. Clinton said Friday of the Black Lives Matter protesters who had accused him and Hillary Clinton of supporting policies that devastated black communities. “But that doesn’t mean that I was most effective in answering it.”

His statement did not quiet a raging storm of criticism. Still, it was a remarkable reversal for Mr. Clinton, who occupies a singular role in his wife’s campaign as a spouse and a popular former president who can sometimes make himself into a lightning rod. He has had to campaign for his wife in an era when signature policies of his administration have been repudiated both by Mrs. Clinton and her opponent, Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont.

None of those issues has been more central to the 2016 campaign than the 1994 crime bill, which created tougher penalties for nonviolent drug offenders, erected dozens of new prisons, banned certain types of assault weapons and sent 100,000 more police officers to American cities.

Today, Black Lives Matter protesters have pointed to the effects of that legislation as contributing to the high rates of incarceration of black men and the current tensions between police officers and black communities.

Both Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Sanders supported the 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act and have had to answer to Black Lives Matter protesters at their events. Both candidates will face tough questions on racial issues next week at the Rev. Al Sharpton’s National Action Network annual convention, less than a week before the April 19 New York primary.

“I was painting crack houses saying, ‘Why isn’t anyone doing anything about it,’” Mr. Sharpton recalled of the 1990s. “But when that bill came out, we panicked because we felt it would go too far.”

Indeed, most Democrats now believe that the bill, which many black leaders supported at the time, did go too far.

At a convention of the N.A.A.C.P. last July, Mr. Clinton even conceded that the law he championed sent low-level criminals to prison “for way too long” and “made the problem worse.”

But on Thursday, when confronted with protesters over the issue, the former president refused to silently listen as a signature policy of his presidency was trampled upon.

“I don’t know how you would characterize gang leaders who got 13-year-old kids hopped up on crack and sent them out on the street to murder other African-American children,” an animated Mr. Clinton said, waving a finger. “Maybe you thought they were good citizens. She didn’t,” he said of Mrs. Clinton.

The video and accounts of his remarks ignited a fierce backlash and came as Mrs. Clinton seeks to solidify the support of black voters, who have voted for her overwhelmingly in primary contests across the South and Midwest.

In her current campaign, Mrs. Clinton has been a fierce advocate of overhauling the criminal justice system, often campaigning alongside the mothers of Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown, Sandra Bland and others who have lost children to gun violence or clashes with the police.

Last April, as protests were consuming Baltimore and Ferguson, Mo., after the deaths of black men at the hands of police officers, Mrs. Clinton devoted her first major policy speech to overturning key parts of the bill. “It’s time to end the era of mass incarceration,” she said.

On Sunday, she addressed three black churches in Brooklyn alongside Nicole Bell, the fiancée of Sean Bell, who was killed in a police shooting the morning of their wedding in 2006.

In both of Mrs. Clinton’s presidential campaigns, Mr. Clinton has proved both her best asset and an occasional liability. He remains widely popular and Mrs. Clinton often talks about his economic achievements. “When he was president, 23 million new jobs, incomes went up for everybody, not just folks at the top,” she said on Sunday.

But other parts of Mr. Clinton’s record, including his support for global trade deals, deficit reduction and deregulation of Wall Street, have haunted Mrs. Clinton, as she confronts a challenge from the left.

And Mr. Clinton has, at times, been an unpredictable and disruptive presence on the campaign trail. He infuriated blacks in 2008 when, after Senator Barack Obama appeared poised for a landslide victory in South Carolina, Mr. Clinton reminded the news media that Jesse Jackson had won the state’s Democratic primary twice. He also called Mr. Obama’s position against the Iraq war “the biggest fairy tale I’ve ever seen.”

This time, Mr. Clinton has a close relationship with Mrs. Clinton’s senior campaign aides and has mostly remained dutifully on message, but the incident on Thursday served as a reminder that he remains a volatile force.

His clash with black protesters on Thursday also underscored the drastically different political landscape Mrs. Clinton faces from the centrist wave that swept her husband to power.

When Mr. Clinton ran for president in 1992, crack cocaine was ravaging American cities and the Willie Horton ad that the elder George Bush had used in 1988 to portray Michael Dukakis as soft on crime had wounded the Democratic Party.

“You are defending the people who kill the lives you say matter,” Mr. Clinton said Thursday to protesters who held up signs that read “Clinton Crime Bill Destroyed Our Communities” and “Black Youth Are Not Super Predators,” a reference to a term used by Mrs. Clinton in 1996 to describe gang members and which she has said she regretted using.

“Tell the truth,” Mr. Clinton told them.

His reaction prompted wide criticism online. “Bill Clinton Reached Peak White Mansplain in a Face-Off Against Black Lives Matter Protesters,” read a headline in Jezebel. Salon called his response “cringe worthy.”

“He just did to an entire generation what he did to Sister Souljah a generation ago,” Ben Jealous, a former president of the N.A.A.C.P. who is supporting Mr. Sanders, said in an interview, referring to Mr. Clinton’s forceful rebuttal of the activist and rapper in 1992 for remarks he deemed hateful.

By Friday, Mr. Clinton said, “I almost want to apologize.”

But Clinton allies said he should be putting into context his record and the landscape he confronted at the time.

In 1993, violent crime had more than tripled in the previous three decades and law enforcement had not caught up. By the time Mr. Clinton left office, crime had dropped to a 25-year low and the homicide rate had declined by more than 40 percent, according to F.B.I. data. Median family income for African-Americans increased by 33 percent in the Clinton years, according to census data, a statistic he often cites when facing criticism of the 1996 overhaul of the welfare system.

Representative James E. Clyburn, a South Carolina Democrat and the highest-ranking African-American in Congress, voted for the 1994 crime bill. “There’s no question one of the biggest issues confronting the country at that time was the whole phenomenon of crack cocaine, which had precipitated tremendous anxiety through the African-American community,” Mr. Clyburn, who has endorsed Mrs. Clinton, said in an interview.

But others say that the crime bill and the welfare overhaul, which cut federal spending on assistance for the poor by nearly $55 billion over six years, were done for political expediency at a time when the Democratic Party had lost five out of the last seven presidential campaigns and had to shift to the center to survive.

“What Clinton did well was to stop the erosion of a certain class of Democratic voters who were fleeing to the Republicans,” said Nicholas Turner, president of the Vera Institute of Justice. “You can’t think about crime policy in this country at that time without thinking about the politics of it.”

As for Mr. Clinton’s defense of the crime bill, Mr. Turner said, “I think the correct answer was simply, ‘I was wrong.’”

Good couple of quotes there at the end from Nicholas Turner. Interesting that Sanders supported the 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act as well. Bill Clinton obviously has no monopoly on political expediency. As an aside, it is also interesting to me to see how the Koch brothers are using the momentum for "reforming the criminal justice system" to push for changes that will make it harder to prosecute white collar crimes. No flies on them.

[kenberg]

Part of that article:

Quote

Indeed, most Democrats now believe that the bill, which many black leaders supported at the time, did go too far.

This perhaps could be a starting point. I am pretty sure that most black leaders also once supported (or maybe this is part of the same thing) tough laws on crack. This would be natural. It's black families and black neighborhoods that are disproportionately torn apart by gun violence. No one has ever pointed a gun at me and I think it is highly unlikely anyone ever will.

Which means, to me, that if we can get past the distrust, the rhetoric, the media events, then it is at least possible there could be substantial common ground. Nobody wants the police to stop arresting bad people, and most particularly people in high crime areas do not want the police to stop arresting bad people. A black store owner in a tough neighborhood wants to hold on to the money in the drawer and wants to live to spend it. Same as a white guy.

Whether we are speaking of O.J. or of Ferguson, views vary sharply by race. Some of this is, I concede with regret, inevitable. But it is in the best interests of everyone to try to find some common ground.

[kenberg]

OK, the Maryland primary is on April 26. I might actually have to think. I had expected the matter to be settled. So, some thoughts. Of mine.

It has been mentioned that "Socialist" doesn't matter, only positions matter. I disagree. Many unplanned events will arise in any president's term, and general outlook matters. If someone tells me he is a Libertarian, or a Christian Conservative, or a Free Trader, or a Socialist, this gives me an idea of how he will think about matters as they arise. I don't label people and I don't let them label me, but when a person chooses a label for himself I suppose he is trying to tell me something.

Over the years I have known a number of people who describe themselves as Socialists. Often I find that they see things differently than I do.

Wealth inequality: It does not come naturally to me to resent the rich. It just doesn't. To Bernie, I think it does. This is important. I do think that the concentration of wealth is a significant problem. Problems must be addressed. But if we can address the problem in a way that makes the poor and others better off while leaving the rich just as rich as they are now, I am fine with that. I am not so sure Bernie is. His approach seems to start with resentment of the rich. Mine doesn't.

As i say, I may have to give this some thought. I am hardly a great Hillary fan. But I think she is intelligent and serious. The fact that her ideology seems, shall we say, adaptable has both pluses and minuses. She is definitely not, Bernie to the contrary, unqualified. But I could hope for better.

As an amusing side note: There are 7 candidates vying to replace Chris Van Hollen in the 8th Congressional District of Maryland. One of them has explained that his experience really qualifies him to understand the problem with college affordability since he and is wife are 160K in debt from student loans. By that logic, we should see if we can find someone 200K in debt. Or 250. I would be more impressed if the grammatical tense were different. If they had struggled and successfully paid off 160K, that would be good. There was no mention, at the forum I attended, of any paying off of the debt.

I will vote, I always do.

[mike777]

Just got back from Chicago. Cops have stopped being "aggressive" and the murder rate, already sky high, has doubled from last year. Roughly 1 million of city money wss spent by a special panel to look for the next police chief. The mayor said thank you to the final three and then selected his own guy who was not on the list.

[Winstonm]

 kenberg, on 2016-April-10, 07:21, said:

OK, the Maryland primary is on April 26. I might actually have to think. I had expected the matter to be settled. So, some thoughts. Of mine.

It has been mentioned that "Socialist" doesn't matter, only positions matter. I disagree. Many unplanned events will arise in any president's term, and general outlook matters. If someone tells me he is a Libertarian, or a Christian Conservative, or a Free Trader, or a Socialist, this gives me an idea of how he will think about matters as they arise. I don't label people and I don't let them label me, but when a person chooses a label for himself I suppose he is trying to tell me something.

Over the years I have known a number of people who describe themselves as Socialists. Often I find that they see things differently than I do.

Wealth inequality: It does not come naturally to me to resent the rich. It just doesn't. To Bernie, I think it does. This is important. I do think that the concentration of wealth is a significant problem. Problems must be addressed. But if we can address the problem in a way that makes the poor and others better off while leaving the rich just as rich as they are now, I am fine with that. I am not so sure Bernie is. His approach seems to start with resentment of the rich. Mine doesn't.

As i say, I may have to give this some thought. I am hardly a great Hillary fan. But I think she is intelligent and serious. The fact that her ideology seems, shall we say, adaptable has both pluses and minuses. She is definitely not, Bernie to the contrary, unqualified. But I could hope for better.

As an amusing side note: There are 7 candidates vying to replace Chris Van Hollen in the 8th Congressional District of Maryland. One of them has explained that his experience really qualifies him to understand the problem with college affordability since he and is wife are 160K in debt from student loans. By that logic, we should see if we can find someone 200K in debt. Or 250. I would be more impressed if the grammatical tense were different. If they had struggled and successfully paid off 160K, that would be good. There was no mention, at the forum I attended, of any paying off of the debt.

I will vote, I always do.

I don't find Sanders to resent the rich but to resent the policies that since the 1980s has made the rich the ultra-rich.

[mike777]

Interesting article by Barney Frank, who clearly dislikes Sanders. Basically he thinks Sanders in 25 years in Congress accomplished nothing, nothing because he would not work with others. He would protest/resent rather than govern.

[kenberg]

 mike777, on 2016-April-10, 17:54, said:

Interesting article by Barney Frank, who clearly dislikes Sanders. Basically he thinks Sanders in 25 years in Congress accomplished nothing, nothing because he would not work with others. He would protest/resent rather than govern.

I found

http://www.politico....-sanders-213591

That is the article your refer to. or is there something more recent?

I am not really prepared to endorse or contest what Barney Frank says there, except that I think he has a point that Sanders benefited enormously from no one, certainly including me, taking him seriously in the beginning.

Now that I take him seriously I don't much like him.