A Message to 2600 Readers and Writers
2600.com
2600.com
The infosec community baffles me, when it comes to politics. I'm no fan of Trump, but the unfounded and apoplectic reactions from the likes of Matt Blaze, Swift on Security, the grugq, Jon Zdziarski, halvarflake, netik, kragen, etc, are batshit crazy.
There is absolutely no evidence that a Trump administration poses any threat at all to infosec, and by many measures represents a better option than the alternative.
Trump's former opponent is on record clamoring for a "Manhattan Project style" effort to undermine crypto, and 2600's readership is concerned with the man whose worst security-related gaffe is a vague suggestion about "[calling] up Bill Gates".
I really don't understand these nominally rational people, when it comes to politics.
> "To think that Apple won't allow us to get into her cellphone? Who do they think they are? No, we have to open it," Trump said during an interview on "Fox & Friends."
> The Republican presidential front-runner called it a matter of common sense:
> I agree 100% with the courts. In that case, we should open it up. I think security overall — we have to open it up. And we have to use our heads. We have to use common sense. Somebody the other day called me a common-sense conservative. We have to use common sense. Our country has so many problems.
This quote in isolation is still not great, what does "I think security overall — we have to open it up" mean? But looking at it in isolation is obviously not very useful. Combine it with his lack of a position on many other important issues, and his cabinet picks so far.
All politicians speak in vague generalities, but most have a record. When a president has no record and no position, I think it is reasonable to prepare for the worst, just in case.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/FBI–Apple_encryption_dispute
I'm not sure what I'm missing here. The position of the government was pretty clear that "Apple should unlock the phone," until the FBI did it independently.
Personally, I agree with Apple's position. Security requires trust, and Apple showed good reason to trust them, enough that I went out and bought an iPhone.
But I have no idea how Trump agreeing with the courts and the FBI shows some kind of radical new threat.
Perhaps the lesson to draw is that, really, we're all authoritarians in some degree. Some of us want our uncle to stop saying the N-word at the Thanksgiving dinner table, some of us don't identify with our assigned gender and lash out at the opposition with responses of disproportional magnitude, and some of us want to classify people by religion and detain them. America truly is a melting pot.
And I say this as a member of the info sec community who most certainly did not vote for Trump. There are very few politicians in the US that could be considered "good" for hackers, present administration included. Trump hasn't said or done anything that our current government hasn't already said or done.
but that conclusion is far away from "Trump is not bad for infosec, actually" especially when you look back further than the Obama administration and remember that the US government used to classify cryptography as literal munitions.
Feel free to call it "bias," for me it's "context" based on past behaviors. Trump is very reactionary, flagrantly ignores facts (at least when talking to the public), and seems unwilling to look at what was sacrificed to achieve what he advocates. If he treats emails that way I think he'll have as much luck as the last person did.
I was actually surprised and disappointed to find how other government officials seem to disregard privacy. Knowing Trump's history, I'm not surprised and concerned how things would get pushed further. No matter who won I think we should be louder and be fighting back.
and yes, they did get a judge to side with them, but to side with such a ruling because "the government" is a disservice to justice.. as there is much more to the rule of law then blind obedience to a single ruling.
Also, appointing a CIA director who wants to bring back the Patriot Act and supports the death penalty for Snowden.
Trump's said plenty of disturbing things. Both in his political run and in his 30+ years in the public eye. He's erratic, petty, prone to seeking revenge, and extremely thin-skinned. Americans should have never given this guy power, but they did.
The most responsible thing 2600 et al could do is warn people and be prepared for the worst. If the worst happens, people need to be prepared already and not taking panicked steps at the last minute. History is full of examples of people thinking the incoming leader didn't mean all the awful things he said. It's best to believe what the leader has said and take appropriate action.
There's a chance of looking crazy if Trump ends up not being as bad as his words indicate, but that's a chance worth taking considering the harsh and very possible alternatives.
I think it's batshit crazy. He's not sophisticated enough to understand how to manipulate currency (he delegates everything, not discusses or strategizes like Obama). Without strategy, there's nothing to hide from. Nobody has ever addressed stenography (although that was a big thing in the 90s), so what kind of headway from a noncommittal populist is there to be had? Fearing Trump is misunderstanding the situation. How hackers manage that, is a constant source of amusement.
My boss doesn't understand half the programming work I do, but I still have to work on the projects he gives me or he'll find another employee who will.
That was the intentional implication. Political power does not block technology, it just changes it. An honored publication, acting like a kid's magazine posting some hand waving about the scary times, is laughable. You know who is going to be set back? RMS, and he knows it. This administration has some knowledge about IP.
Flipping out about the nomination of Wilbur Ross, for example, as Secretary of Commerce detracts from the weight of legitimate arguments against many of Trump's other picks.
To many journalists' credit the reaction quickly quieted down once his record and character become more clear, but first impressions are sticky. Now journalists and pundits, especially liberal-leaning pundits, will find it that much more difficult to constructively criticize Ross or other officials in the future given that it's established that they wrongfully flipped out in at least one significant case.
You make fewer of those mistakes when you stick to concrete facts and concrete policy points. And it goes without saying your arguments will be all the more sound for it.
Yes, Trump's rhetoric is anxiety inducing, and there's plenty about his track record, including as president-elect, that evidences he's willing and capable to follow through on much of it. But there's also evidence he won't follow through on some of it. If he doesn't then he can claim people were crying wolf. He probably will do this strategically. Certainly his rhetoric is strategic.
Unfortunately we won't be able to get off this roller coaster for at least 4 years. But that doesn't give everybody carte blanche to start screaming their heads off right out the gate.
Look, plenty of other countries have had to deal with, and are dealing with, demagogues. We know how to do deal with it. Keep your heads on straight and stay vigilant.
Anyhow, if people are right about Trump, there'll be plenty of opportunity for [more] outrage. If there's not, then all the better.
I hope you're right, but I really don't understand this view. You look at the terrible leaders throughout history, and you'll find they more often than not advertised what they were going to do and who they were going to be.
I'd much rather be prepared than just assume Trump is a troll. I'd rather see an implacable opposition ready to go on day 1. If Trump ends up being a simply bad president, in the conventional way presidents are bad and not a Russian puppet or kleptocrat or autocrat, then people like me might look a little silly. But that's a small price for being prepared if things turn out very differently.
What should scare you the most isn't Trump; it should be the credulity of the electorate, its tolerance of his rhetoric, and its faith in his vague promises. Trump's rhetoric has only _softened_ over the course of the past year. Not too long ago he was literally criticizing John McCain for being captured.
People in dictatorial regimes didn't get there by being quiet. They never were. Even today in places like Venezuela and Russia people take to the streets. They got there by losing a channel of communication to their fellow citizens.
It's no coincidence that Trump's rhetoric is typically vague and non-specific. The whole Muslim registry thing, for example, was vague enough that many people could rationalize it away; that's even easier now that Trump has come out against it.
People are just going to waste their bullets by shooting at poorly defined, moving targets. And when you finally get something lined up in your sites and have a good shot, nobody is going to notice. Trump clearly enjoys tweaking the opposition this way, he understands that his audience enjoys it. Trump understands how and when to hold and distract their attention--it's second nature to him because he thrives on that attention.
All the Republican nomination competitors made the same mistake... and lost. Hillary Clinton made the same mistake... and lost. Pointing out the obvious flaws in his policies, the impossibility of his promises, and his rejection of core American ideals DID NOT WORK! The moment those tactics find any purchase, he changes his tune accordingly.
Too many people _want_ to believe; too many people are reveling in a sense of rebellion, insensitive to consequences. The only way to get through to them is to give them a front-row seat to each and every policy failure, along with an accompanying narrative that squarely lays the blame at his feet.
In the interstitial time between consequential events, people (especially journalists) should just focus on maintaining transparency, so that the record cannot be easily denied. Doing that requires not providing fodder that allows the administration to sow uncertainty and doubt about opposition criticisms.
If people keep reacting to every aspect of Trump's rhetoric, there won't be anybody in the audience left. They'll have all gone home, either secure in their faith in Trump's promises or given over to apathy. Just like people are in Venezuela, Russia, and elsewhere.
It's not about standing up to Trump. This is a democracy. The only way to win is by persuading his supporters, especially when it's this early in the game and Trump and his growing band of sycophants haven't secured much institutional power.
So how are my ideas out of sync with reality? The only thing out-of-sync with reality is doubling-down on the same strategies that lost over the past two years of intense political campaigning.
Policies do not make the candidate. Ultimately, voters elect a person, not a set of abstract policies. Policies _should_ make the candidate, and we _should_ endeavor to nurture a culture where policies matter.
But, alas, in the current environment somebody like Trump is thriving. Like Putin, he thrives _despite_ the fact that clear (though distinct) majorities reject almost every one of his concrete policies. (The exception being national defense, where more is always better and voters don't care much about the details.) And he'll likely follow Putin's pattern--openly promise one thing, do something else when nobody is looking, then deflect criticism using traditional propaganda techniques--promises were "just rhetoric", implemented policies are "misconstrued" and "ill-informed", and... look, squirrel!
Given the cult of personality (Trump the star, Trump the vehicle for rejecting the established order), the way to win is diminish support for the personality. You do that not by attacking policies directly, but by attacking policies in such a way that they expose the personality as a fraud. Those are truly two different things. The latter isn't focused on the rightness or wrongness of policy (always a debatable point), but rather in showing that Trump doesn't actually have voters' interests at heart; you show that Trump is a poor vehicle for reform.
Far be it from me to question the rhetorical strategies of Trump, but how's this rhetorical strategy going to work exactly?
Trump: "And as usual the media cried wolf and was flipping out, saying that I was going to bulk up our nuclear arsenal"
Sane Person: Well, you did say you were going to build up the nuclear arsenal. They were just quoting you really.
Trump: But I didn't do it! Typical crooked media, always crying wolf.
I'm resistant to call this a "rhetorical strategy." It is totally reasonable for the media or anyone else to take a president elect's policy statements as, well, policy statements.
If Trump backs out of those statements, Trump can explain why he changed his mind, I have no problem with that. But no, I don't think the blame shifts to the media because they took Trump at his word.
> The President's said plenty of disturbing things. Both in his political run and in his 30+ years in the public eye. He's erratic, petty, prone to seeking revenge, and extremely thin-skinned. Americans should have never given this guy power, but they did.
The only rational thing we can do is judge the man by his words, policies and actions. And those look absolutely dismal.
Well, someone is clearly reacting incorrectly. Maybe it's Schneier, 2600, Matt Blaze, Swift on Security, the grugq, Jon Zdziarski, halvarflake, netik, kragen, etc. And maybe it's you.
Which side it is, is currently up to everyone to decide for themselves. But I know who I trust more.
Anyway I will admit I felt compelled to un-follow a couple people on Twitter, and muted some that I normally find very entertaining (swift on security being one of them) because they are channeling their political grief in ways that make them look very foolish to me. How can I trust their logic if they claim or suggest that Trump is going to lock up gay people or will preemptively fire nukes on day 1? There is a massive amount of lies and unfounded propaganda that was put out in the media against Trump that never was nor ever will be true.
The person I was replying to did not. But he has weighed in on the matter. From https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2016/12/my_priorities...: "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. It's more than I can possibly do on my own, and I am therefore substantially increasing my annual philanthropy to support organizations like EPIC, EFF, ACLU, and Access Now in continuing their work in these areas.
My agenda is necessarily focused entirely on my particular areas of concern. The risks of a Trump presidency are far more pernicious, but this is where I have expertise and influence."
> I really like Schneier and while i'm pretty sure of his political leanings, he doesn't seem to be the type of guy that would abandon his love of logic and reason for some political temper tantrums.
You're right, he doesn't. That's my point.
While Clinton did call for a "Manhattan Project," it was not to "undermine crypto." In fact she said in a townhall that she opposed back doors, which puts her on the right side a line that Trump is on the wrong side of--he said that Apple should be compelled to build the backdoor that FBI asked for.
And now we have reporting that her advisors knew the reality of encryption and were working on education her.
The scariest things about Trump are 1) he shows no inclination to study or understand complex policy subjects, of which infosec is certainly one, 2) he has policy proposals that will require extremely invasive info technologies to work, like a Muslim registry and mass deportation of immigrants, and 3) he reacts aggressively and impulsively to any criticism or disagreement, which the infosec delivers in spades.
I have not subscribed in quite some many years. And I can't remember the last volume that I read. And yet. I was suddenly sad and ready support them financially.
I think 2600 has been a good influence. I hope they always stick around.
Note: the message has nothing to do with them going anywhere.
2600's hackers don't matter much any more. Hacking is now carried out by either intelligence agencies or ongoing criminal enterprises.
It's also one of the periodicals that I am absolutely amazed is still printed on dead trees. I would have expected them to be one of the first to go all digital.
Also I thought they'd shut down once Kevin Mitnick was free.
I've got 5 years of mags sitting on a shelf in my closet. The girlfriend goes browsing through every now and again and comes up with interesting sec/privacy/hacking related convo. That alone pays for their place in my life.
The day Emmanuel stops doing Off The Hook & Off The Wall will be a sad one though.
Weird. My level of concern: I buy every copy with a credit card at Barnes & Noble.
I feel like a lot of independent hackers (as well as government officials) don't realize that hacking and info sec in general can be (and currently is) a completely acceptable enterprise occupation. If hackers were being rounded up and sent to jail, I can count at least 4,000 people at my company who would be missing Monday morning. And that's just the number of people connected to my Slack team, which is not mandatory to join.
> On more than one occasion, all hacker-related clothing was also thrown in the trash.
Watch out! Don't wear that 1337 hackerz t-shirt! That sounds like a case of paranoia that someone ought to see a professional about.
"Since November, we have witnessed a variety of reactions to the surprising political developments in our country. We expect nothing less and welcome the thoughts, opinions, ideas, and schemes that our readers and writers put forth. There is one disturbing perspective, though, that we need to address.
A number of people in our community feel that hackers in particular will be under increased scrutiny and will be facing significant threats under a Trump administration. We've received requests from both readers and writers to erase all evidence of their existence in our correspondence and to cancel their subscriptions and remove their names from our database. On more than one occasion, all hacker-related clothing was also thrown in the trash.
It's this reaction that we find more disturbing than any of the many potential threats we're facing. Why? Because bad things happen when people let them. As long as we stand united and are willing to fight back against anything that would threaten us as individuals or as a community, we have what it takes to prevent such threats from taking hold. If we yield, it's handing out a blank check.
Yes, there is much to be concerned about and even to fear. Hackers, as always, seem to be right in the middle of the controversial news stories bombarding us every day. But we need to embrace this, not push it away. We have always protected the confidentiality of both our subscribers and those sources who contribute material to our publication. We will never stop doing this.
There is great strength in numbers and in intelligence. We need both in order to survive what may be hugely challenging times. We cannot let the specter of oppression slow us down because if such a scenario were to come true, that is when we would be needed the most. We should have more articles than ever, edgy and controversial material that we embrace, and a ton of people who aren't afraid to read and collect what we're putting out. After all, it's in the darkest hours when a bright light makes the most difference.
We are changing the terms for writers of printed pieces, beginning with the Winter 2016-2017 issue due out in early January. Instead of a choice between a year of our magazine or one of our t-shirts, we are now offering both of these items for every article printed. And as for what articles we're looking for, as always we want pieces that embrace the hacker spirit, that examine and dissect technology in ways others haven't, and/or that reveal inconvenient truths about services and products that those in charge really don't want people to know about. Bombshells and leaks of all types are great and, as mentioned, we always protect our sources. And, being a printed magazine, it's a lot harder to block or filter us from any part of the globe.
You can send your article contributions to articles@2600.com or by surface or air mail to 2600 Editorial Department, PO Box 99, Middle Island, NY 11953 USA.
We are but one window into a world of amazing voices. Please support others as well as us. If our speech and communication are to be seen as a threat to any regime, it's far better that there be a huge number of us than a tiny number. There will be some tests ahead and probably some hard times. We can't think of a better group to face that with."
I have a LOT of friends who went through all the government growing pains when they were trying to enact laws to try and curb hacking. The feds were putting people away for 20+ years and weren't screwing around when they went after hackers. And what happened? We all banded together, formed underground communities, shared ideas on how to evade the government, and created tools to do so, some of which are still in use to this very day.
The fact that people seem overtly paranoid about a Trump presidency is so overblown. I mean, some of the toughest sentences that have been handed down to hackers were done under both a republican president and a democratic president (Clinton and Bush) and to a large degree the FBI is (or should be) a non political entity.
I can't believe this people have also forgotten about the fight for proper encryption, how we are rallying to get the CFAA laws changed as well as the progress that Snowden has brought this country in terms of the governments overreach with regards to spying on its citizens.
I see and hear a lot of this and just shake my head. Hackers have always been at war with the government in some shape or form. Just because we have a new president should not deter people from continuing the fight.
Depressing to hear this. . . .
wish they were more active...
[0] http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:PL_BKoM...