He even says as much:
Those are my four areas. Under a Clinton administration, my list would have looked much the same. Trump's election just means the threats will be much greater, and the battles a lot harder to win.
Those are my four areas. Under a Clinton administration, my list would have looked much the same. Trump's election just means the threats will be much greater, and the battles a lot harder to win.
Why should we fear a Trump administration more? Why should we fear it so much that it's worth changing our personal focus for the next four years? Doesn't that seem reactionary?
If we look at the facts, we know that the Bushes and Clintons are friendly and even share a lot of similar views and the same goes for the Obamas and Clintons...and the Trumps and Clintons. Hell, one of Trump's first statements after that infamous tape was: "Bill Clinton has said worse things to me on the golf course". I'm inclined to believe him [0].
So we've got the previous four administrations going back to the 1980s that are chummy and/or have similar views. Under those administrations all this government surveillance has taken place. Under those administrations all this corporate overreach has been happening. Under these administrations we had social networks tracking their users without consent. More recently, Obama has been fairly friendly towards Zuckerberg and other tech stars. Tech and politics are intertwined now.
So know all of this...what steps is Trump going to take that are going to be worse than those that a Clinton administration would have engaged in?
Without something supporting it, it's just fearmongering.
No doubt the Clinton administration would've continued a lot of the same surveillance, but it's unlikely she would've made populist and hyperbolic appeals to the people to turn them into a mob against those like Schneier or companies like Apple who want to protect our privacy (however imperfectly).
EDIT: What's Clinton at a Trump wedding matter? Wealthy and powerful people hobnob with wealthy and powerful people. My girlfriend's father is well-connected in Argentina, he attends events at the US Embassy and with other well-connected people. It implies nothing except that people in that strata network and socialize, which is a large part of maintaining their status.
People with knowledge of the call in both camps said it was one of many that Clinton and Trump have had over the years, whether about golf or donations to the Clinton Foundation. But the call in May was considered especially sensitive, coming soon after Hillary Rodham Clinton had declared her own presidential run the month before.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/bill-clinton-called-...
These people being so close makes it strange that the elcetion of one would cause fear while the other would cause things to go on as usual.
Pretty similar, huh? So you're inclined to believe that Hillary has said worse things to Trump on the golf course too?
Because Trump explicitly campaigned on going after journalists and his critics. He literally said he was going to rewrite slander and libel laws so he could sue people who criticized him. He's also probably one of the most litigious people in America, so it's not just talk.
How do you not know all this? Did you not pay attention to the election?
Trump, on the other hand, has been unpredictable since his election (I speak more about his inclusion of Elon Musk into his advisory council as well as Bill Gates comparing him to JFK). I think an administration that is business-minded can yield great economic prosperity but might not necessarily have interests in maintaining the rights of American citizens.
I don't think we've seen an administration in the last 25 years that had an interest in maintaining the rights of American citizens.
Hillary is a hawk, I don't recall her speaking out against the NSA or drone strikes. I do recall Feinstein, a senior Democrat Chair in the Senate politicking for surveillance. It seems Trump is less interventionist that what we've seen in the past 30 years from both parties in Congress. Perhaps that in and of itself will lessen the massiveness of our surveillance systems, perhaps not.
If you take a step back, realize that political parties are private entities that try to get their members elected into power, and they spend a lot of money convincing the citizenry they are the right choice. If it were Exxon-Mobile doing the same thing, you would have pause, even if they were saying the right things.
I'm not saying that Trump's administration will not be a complete disaster, but that remains to be seen.
The CEO of Exxon-Mobil is going to be Secretary of State.
The country is becoming a one-party state.