Clinton Campaign Happily Using Strong End-To-End Encryption To Communicate; Will They Let The Rest Of Us Use It Too?

from the good-for-the-goose dept

Hillary Clinton has been somewhat hard to pin down on the encryption debate -- because she's done what she's done with plenty of issues, generally spoken in broad platitudes without ever making a statement that allows her position to actually be clear. But she's certainly said some pretty concerning stuff. Last fall she said:
Encryption of mobile communications presents a particularly tough problem. We should take the concerns of law enforcement and counterterrorism professionals seriously. They have warned that impenetrable encryption may prevent them from accessing terrorist communications and preventing a future attack.
Of course, she then did a "on the other hand" and noted the concerns of security folks. Since then, she's called for a sort of Manhattan Project on encryption, believing that if Silicon Valley people could just nerd harder, they could make encryption that could only be broken by law enforcement. That's not how it works. She's also complained that Silicon Valley treats the government "as its adversary."

So it seems rather noteworthy that, following questions about how well she secured her own emails, combined with email leaks from the DNC and reports that the campaign itself has been hacked, the Clinton campaign has now started using Signal, the popular encrypted messaging system from Open Whisper Systems (which made the protocol that is generally considered the best around for end-to-end encrypted messaging).
In the intervening weeks, staffers were told, according to a person who works with the committee, that if anyone was going to communicate about Donald Trump over e-mail or text message, especially if those missives were even remotely contentious or disparaging, it was imperative that they do so using an application called Signal....

Signal, staffers in the meeting were told, was “Snowden-approved.” A week after the meeting at the campaign headquarters, according to two people who have worked with the D.N.C. and the Clinton campaign, an e-mail was sent out instructing staffers where to download the app and how to use it.
So, you'd think that, maybe (just maybe) the Clinton campaign might come out and say that it's not planning to support bills that would outlaw Signal after they're elected, right?

Perhaps it'll take another lesson. Because, apparently, the Clinton campaign staffers didn't pay much attention to the briefing:
While the D.N.C. hack sent tremors down the spines of virtually everyone in Washington, it didn’t take long for people to take the easy route, once again e-mailing sensitive information that could easily hamper the campaign if it ever became public. Or, as one Washington insider told me: “No one really learned.”
So, there's that.

The other oddity in this story is that Hillary Clinton has called for Snowden to be put in jail, and yet now her campaign is telling everyone to use Snowden-approved encryption? The irony did not go unnoticed by one person in particular:

Reader Comments

The First Word

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • identicon
    Michael, 29 Aug 2016 @ 6:46am

    if anyone was going to communicate about Donald Trump over e-mail or text message, especially if those missives were even remotely contentious or disparaging, it was imperative that they do so using

    Translation:

    If you are going to do something you shouldn't, it is really important you hide it well so you do not get caught.

    That seems redundant. If there is one lesson we have already been taught by Hillary Clinton, it's this.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Berenerd (profile), 29 Aug 2016 @ 6:47am

    Encryption? What Encryption?

    They can get into their own phones, their encryption is fine. They can't get into our phones, that is their issue.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 29 Aug 2016 @ 6:49am

    "The other oddity in this story is that Hillary Clinton has called for Snowden to be put in jail, and yet now her campaign is telling everyone to use Snowden-approved encryption? "

    So you don't want positions to evolve? No matter the motive, the move to strong encryption is the pro-encryption nose under the tent, now shuffle that nose further inside and soon the whole camel will be there. I'm getting the impression some people will complain even if they win.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 29 Aug 2016 @ 7:21am

      Re:

      "So you don't want positions to evolve? "

      Is that what the politicians are calling it now? 6 months ago she was calling for his head. Now she wants his approval on her encryption? Well, I guess it is logical. Snowden didn't get caught, and she keeps getting caught. Maybe she's trying to evolve into a better crook?

      It's actually quite funny:

      She wants Snowden in jail, for basically doing the same thing she did.

      https://www.wired.com/2015/09/snowden-people-get-fired-prosecuted-hillary-clinton/

      Then she wants to break encryption:

      http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/12/hillary-clinton-wants-manhattan-like-project-t o-break-encryption/

      Then she starts using the gold standard in encryption.

      She's as crooked as the rest of them.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 29 Aug 2016 @ 7:50am

        Re: Re:

        Hillary for President!!!!

        Yep, I said it!
        Cause fucking Trump is going to be the same way!

        We have two fucking scumbags running... lets see which cancer infects the presidency next!

        Clintoon, Bush, and Obama were all cancers! We are just evolving to the next stage.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          David, 29 Aug 2016 @ 9:02am

          Re: Re: Re:

          I don't see that Trump needs to encrypt even the most nefarious of his plans. When people don't gobble it up, they think/claim/hope he's joking.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          David, 29 Aug 2016 @ 9:19am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Third party. Vote Johnson. This is a rare time where both the main candidates are so flawed, that the third party candidate is the most logical choice. Voting for either of the flawed candidates simple perpetuates the problem for another term.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 29 Aug 2016 @ 11:21am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Agree, voting for any candidate from a party is eventual suicide. It is very tempting for me to vote for Johnson, but his stance on immigration is wrong and destructive for America. The issue is so important that it is eclipsing most of the other ones.

            If we have no border, we will soon have no nation. The current problems in the EU are proof of where this ridiculous immigration polices will get us!

            I will not be voting for trump either. I have no reason to believe a fucking thing that leaves that assholes mouth.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Uriel-238 (profile), 29 Aug 2016 @ 1:16pm

            The trick is convincing enough people to vote for the SAME third party.

            Even Roosevelt and Perot weren't able to get near what it takes to be anything but a spoiler.

            I dislike both candidates, but I fear Trump more, hence I'm voting for Clinton to vote against Trump. But convince me that Johnson can get enough votes to be a vote against both of them, and I'll play along.

            Of course that involves convincing a plurality of the rest of the US. You've got yourself a challenge.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 29 Aug 2016 @ 4:21pm

              Re: The trick is convincing enough people to vote for the SAME third party.

              Johnson will get third place. 2012 was 1% with Stein less than half that. He's the best chance of making more voters consider more than two options.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 29 Aug 2016 @ 9:41am

          Re: Re: Re:

          I think I'm beginning to see... this is White House Go! Gotta elect 'em all!

          Is it harder to capture the vote as you get into higher levels?

          Other than controlling the polling stations and evolving your politicians, is there really anything else to this game?

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 29 Aug 2016 @ 9:47am

          Re: Re: Re:

          Clintoon, Bush, and Obama were all cancers!


          That is plainly not true.

          Yes, Bush was a Cancer.

          But Bill Clinton and Obama were both Leos, and Hillary is a Scorpio.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      That One Guy (profile), 29 Aug 2016 @ 12:57pm

      "My privacy and security is important, yours not so much."

      I've got no problem with a politician being willing to change their mind once they realize how flawed their previous position is, so long as they admit it and act accordingly. If she's for encryption for herself and her party then it's massively hypocritical at best if she also continues to hold an anti-encryption position when it comes to everyone else.

      If she's 'seen the light' as far as the value of encryption and is now of the position that her previous anti-encryption stance was not only wrong but dangerous then awesome, one less stupid idea held by a politician and she should make her change of heart public so that it's clear that she recognizes that she was wrong before and won't continue to make absurd 'Nerd harder!' claims and continue to insist that encryption can absolutely be broken 'safely'.

      On the other hand if she's only pro-encryption when it comes to encryption she's using then it's not a change of position at all, she's still anti-encryption in general she just realizes the value of it when it comes to her stuff, while continuing to believe that the public at large shouldn't be able to have the same level of privacy and security.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        beltorak (profile), 29 Aug 2016 @ 7:42pm

        Re: "My privacy and security is important, yours not so much."

        > On the other hand if she's only pro-encryption when it comes to encryption she's using then it's not a change of position at all, she's still anti-encryption in general she just realizes the value of it when it comes to her stuff, while continuing to believe that the public at large shouldn't be able to have the same level of privacy and security.

        Oh she understands the value of encryption no matter whose information it protects, make no mistake about that. There's a subtler motive at work here: she doesn't think you deserve to avail yourself of that value. It's that pervasive attitude permeating throughout the DNC that leads me to see them all, and Hillary more than most, as psychopathic snakes. It is that snide, barely obscured mentality underpinning the actions they take that is corroding the foundational philosophies of our republic. How dare you think you should have the same rights and protections as your betters. How dare you think your betters should have to follow the same laws as you.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Uriel-238 (profile), 29 Aug 2016 @ 6:53am

    Maybe Mrs. Clinton's opinions are evolving.

    When Obama's opinions evolved about gays in the military and gay marriage, we regarded it as progress.

    Clinton using (and supporting use of) secure crypto and recognizing Snowden.

    Maybe we should save criticizing her on this one until she actually says what's good for her is too good for the rest of us peons, and delays in pardoning Snowden.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 29 Aug 2016 @ 7:51am

      Re: Maybe Mrs. Clinton's opinions are evolving.

      Some regarded that progress as pandering.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Eponymous Coward (profile), 29 Aug 2016 @ 10:33am

      Re: Maybe Mrs. Clinton's opinions are evolving.

      No, sir, we should hit her repeatedly on this one. This isn't a policy choice, which would be trumpeted publicly in press conferences. This is a serial liar, a professional in obfuscation, realizing that the person she would have hanged has domain expertise and recognizing that his expertise should be respected. Saying a junkyard dog is good at guarding the junkyard is a far cry from saying that you want to let him sleep at the foot of your child's bed.

      If you expect HRC to say that the rank and file should get to play by the same rules that she does, you will be repeatedly and viciously disappointed.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Uriel-238 (profile), 29 Aug 2016 @ 1:25pm

        "rank and file should get to play by the same rules that she does"

        I agree she doesn't believe that, but I'd like to see her admit that's the case more, even if accidentally.

        Or maybe even force her to understand why equal law for all was a good idea in the first place.

        When Robespierre was executed in the Place de la Révolution, he was turned face up so that he could watch the blade come down.

        I think nothing short of such an experience would sway Clinton to recognize equal law.

        But I think not even that would convince Trump that anyone was his equal, or should be treated with equal regard to him.

        I hate this election.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Padpaw (profile), 29 Aug 2016 @ 6:56am

    Clinton is a woman who supports defending women from abuse with 1 hand then takes bribes from the biggest woman abusers around (Saudi Arabians) with the other hand.

    she will screw over everyone else as long as she benefits from it. She cannot be trusted on anything she says.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Eponymous Coward (profile), 29 Aug 2016 @ 10:36am

      Re:

      "supports defending women from abuse"

      So long as they aren't alleging that her husband was the abuser. There were quite a few voices that she felt didn't deserve to be heard when it didn't suit her agenda.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        nasch (profile), 29 Aug 2016 @ 1:57pm

        Re: Re:

        So long as they aren't alleging that her husband was the abuser.

        To be a little more explicit in case some hadn't heard, she had something on her web site saying all victims of sexual abuse deserve to be believed. Then Juanita Broaddrick reiterated her accusations of rape against Bill Clinton, and that statement was suddenly (and silently) removed from her web site.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 29 Aug 2016 @ 6:59am

    Is TD ever going to cover the WhatsApp debacle?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 29 Aug 2016 @ 7:11am

    The government has a warped definition of encryption. It's only a good thing if only the government uses encryption. It's not so good when ordinary citizens can use it.

    I seem to recall the U.S. Government banning any consumer-based computer if it ran faster than a government computer. This happened back in the 80's and early 90's. Fortunately for consumers, this was repealed to allow computer manufacturers to produce fast processing computers for consumer use.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    ThatFatMan (profile), 29 Aug 2016 @ 7:21am

    Ok, so Hillary is on the "encryption is bad because terrorism" bandwagon and yet she is encouraging the use of encryption for her campaign.

    This tells me all I need to know...Hillary is preparing to carry out a terrorist attack on the Whitehouse.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 29 Aug 2016 @ 7:54am

    No, of course she doesn't want his approval. Not like you can't hate someone and recognize their accomplishments at the same time. Also Edward Snowden's name has become a trademark of sorts and "Snowden-approved" could simply mean really secure.

    As for what they'd do after? Force app vendors to serve the gov. one encrypted channel while spying on their customers on another "encrypted" channel.

    Even assuming Silicon Valley could "nerd hard enough" to create an encryption only breakable by "The Law" (w/e the hell that means), who's to say a corrupt officer (of "The Law") can't obtain access and later leak/misuse the data.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 29 Aug 2016 @ 8:01am

    Seriously? She's not evolving into a crook, she already IS a crook. Politicians who argue against encryption are crooks because that's putting our security and our privacy at risk.

    | Maybe she's trying to evolve into a better crook? |

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 29 Aug 2016 @ 8:57am

    Even Nixon didn't destroy his tapes

    Clinton allegedly had the open-source Bleachbit used to wipe her servers. If nothing else, secure and open source tools are getting their 15 minutes of fame.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 29 Aug 2016 @ 5:40pm

      Re: Even Nixon didn't destroy his tapes

      "Clinton allegedly had the open-source Bleachbit used to wipe her servers"

      Clueless Clinton was using the Bleachbit on her *hair*!

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Groaker (profile), 29 Aug 2016 @ 9:12am

    ignorant narcissists being led by ignorant sychophants

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    David, 29 Aug 2016 @ 9:16am

    People/Business vs Government?

    She's also complained that Silicon Valley treats the government "as its adversary."


    As well it should.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 29 Aug 2016 @ 10:32am

      Re: People/Business vs Government?

      It is certainly a conundrum that she is propagandizing for nonsensical holes in encryption and are putting pressure on Silicon Valley to solve those political problems while she at the same time asks to be their friend.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 29 Aug 2016 @ 9:23am

    Silicon Valley treats the government "as its adversary."

    Uh... It kind of is... I know I'd be pretty pissed off if every time I had a great idea I was met with thousands of pages of regulations and petty bureaucrats threatening me

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 29 Aug 2016 @ 9:47am

      Re:

      ...and being ridiculed in a public forum for telling the truth and explaining it nicely.

      Maybe if the government stopped trying to "make an example" of Silicon Valley companies and individuals for doing their jobs and trying to help on top of that, there'd be no adversarial relationship.

      Kinda like if the bully at school keeps punching you in the shoulder (hard) every day before school -- and then complains that you appear to be in an adversarial relationship with them when you refuse to help them with their homework.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 29 Aug 2016 @ 11:30am

        Re: Re:

        more like, the people are so stupid that it's okay to punish the one protecting themselves from the bully because violence is never the solution.

        Peaceniks are the worst scum to visit humanity. They bind down the decent in chains without hampering the corrupt.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          JoeCool (profile), 29 Aug 2016 @ 1:48pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          I wouldn't call them "worst scum" as much as idealistic to the point of destruction... most often of the innocent. They're a clear speed bump to progress, but not as bad as some problems in the long run.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          nasch (profile), 29 Aug 2016 @ 3:26pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Peaceniks are the worst scum to visit humanity.

          Worse than the ones actually perpetrating violence?

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 29 Aug 2016 @ 10:30am

    The real question is..

    How many million$ did YOU donate? If you can't answer that question then you don't get encryption.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Whatever (profile), 29 Aug 2016 @ 7:05pm

    "Hillary Clinton has been somewhat hard to pin down on the encryption debate -- because she's done what she's done with plenty of issues, generally spoken in broad platitudes without ever making a statement that allows her position to actually be clear. "

    She could be a writer for Techdirt, you guys are pretty good at keeping things muddy as hell!


    Seriously don't worry about Hillary's position. It's pretty typical political stuff: The great good would be to make it so criminals can't hide their action so we need to break encryption, but since I don't want anyone to know what we are talking about we will use encryption for now.

    It's about the here and now versus the theoretical future. Good politicians keep a foot in each.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 30 Aug 2016 @ 12:10am

      Re:

      You seem to enjoy whining about people worrying about other people's positions by worrying about other people's positions.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Show Now: Takedown
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.