Nah, technically, DOJ needs to fight this. They are making their case in the public zeitgeist on the difficulties of encryption. It’s an election year, they’re not really pushing for legislation, but they are tee-ing up the issue, trying to determine where the sympathies are, where the legal catches are. And if you…

Pass what? GO through where? There is no bill.

Actually, the PR stunt here is on the side of the government. They know and have known for years and years every bit of technical information about the encryption used on various devices, software and services. They were just lying in wait for a case that they could sympathetically take to court.

For an entirely different reason. Don’t conflate the two, though your simple mind seems to be unable to recognize the difference.

Yes. Twice. One still contacts me via LinkedIn and work email, will create situations to run in to me for work-related issues, though we haven’t been in the same field for... 7 years? He’s very scary. The second physically harmed me so that I ran from his apartment, leaving my things behind, and should have gone…

Right? He was obviously drawing people into these debates to show-off (?), attempt to impress (?), but rather than try to woo co-eds, he stooped to attacking them? That is... twisted and kind of dark. I fight for a living, but it’s not personal. Never personal, in fact. And most days, I still tired of the arguing.…

I watched today’s hearing (occupational hazard) and Members lit that place up. The agencies sent witnesses who were not employed during the time of wrong doing (an old Washington trick) but what I think most people fail to recognize is this Committee’s jurisdiction. Oversight has broad, flexible power and subpoena…

First of all, I am not a “computer person,” I am a Washington attorney who deals with big policy issues with the government.

Umm, shill much? It’s a total stunt. And she knows everything she needs to know about encryption and the issues of Going Dark, give me a fucking break. It’s only one of the top issues for 2016 in technology, spare me the - she’s a politician BS. They’re briefed. It’s a stunt. They’re too close tot he law enforcement…

For the record, she got caught. She said she wanted a backdoor, she said she wanted companies to assist the government - which is what she believes - then she realized, whoops, not so popular, and is trying to backpedal. No one believes it. We know what she will require - same as her husband. You writers should do…

The case will be retried.

I love you. This is hilarious.

Why are you defending Clinton? And yes, she is. Clearly you do not work in policy, so let’s connect the dots - bad things happening around the world, links to ISIS. The FBI spends its time whining that they have trouble conducting investigations now because companies aren’t bending over backward to help them and to…

She’s using coded language, trying to appeal to Internet companies in SV using their lingo, when really behind closed doors the message is - the government must have access to the data... encryption is making it hard for the FBI, you need to unencrypted user communications... you need to be more vigorously monitoring…

No, she knows. And her people know. Hillary is very tech-unfriendly, her State Dept policies were (are - they remain) hostile toward American tech companies and her husband’s Administration passed CALEA, which is the predecessor of what Dems want for access through encryption.

Phone numbers are not private information, though you may want them to be.

Huh? There is no violation here.

Why do you think that’s protected information? If you send the email, you should consider it public.

Those “disclosures” absolutely no legal function. Just a layer of liability coverage for orgs. CNN was not sharing financial docs to the wrong address, it was a request to appear on TV.

There is not such thing in law surrounding electronic communications content.