The Art of the Donald Trumpocalypse

[Xmann]

This is even stupider than "tubes".

TRUMP: We should be using our brilliant people. Our most brilliant mind to figure a way that ISIS cannot use the internet. And then on second, we should be able to penetrate the internet and find out exactly where ISIS is and everything about ISIS. We can do that if we use our good people.

BLITZER: Let me follow up, Mr. Trump. So, are you open to closing parts of the internet?

TRUMP: I would certainly be open to closing areas where we are at war with somebody. I sure as hell don't want to let people that want to kill us and kill our nation use our internet. Yes, sir. I am.

Trump is a real-estate man. Location, location, location.

I have a serious question/comment.

Last week I saw a comment on Facebook where someone said something to the nature, " I can't get a signal on my phone in my office but someone in ISIS can post a video of a beheading from the desert in Syria "

What my interpretation of Trumps comments about "turning off the internet", is how he responded last night. He wants to limit access to those in countries like Syria and how much they can or can't communicate.

Am I interpreting this wrong? Is he saying something else or do we not have the ability to do this? I'm asking in all seriousness because I'm not that familiar with the infrastructure. Can we realistically do this or is it political hogwash?

[hepcat]

I honestly think it has more to do with how disenfranchised his followers are. He's not winning in spite of his awful message, he's winning because of his awful message. Cruz is moving towards the outrageous now (nuke 'em 'til they glow!) and he's seeing a spike. If Trump wins, it won't be because he was a brilliant campaigner, it will be because we've got a large section of America that is scared and irrational and looking for someone they believe is going to vent that anger...no matter how much it destroys our country in the process.

Why has he succeeded when others with similar messages have failed? He was a household name going into the campaign. That's all. The people who follow him have seen him on TV for years. That was enough to give him the boost he needed.

I hate to keep belaboring this point, but Trump is a brilliant campaigner because his campaigning has put him on top. Folks keep wanting to challenge the meaning of "great" or "brilliant" when what we're seeing is real-time redefinition of "campaigning."

The refusal to play the game as once played? That's campaigning now. The stoking of paranoia and hatred? Campaigning. The irrelevance of eloquence? Campaigning. The reality-show disconnection from facts and complexity? That's campaigning.

It's all still in flux, and we can hope that what's being redefined here is merely "campaigning in a GOP nomination race against weak opponents in a climate still afflicted with Obama Derangement Syndrome" and not "American politics, period." But I feel pretty sure that Trump's opponents don't look at what he's doing and write him off because they're campaigning and he's not.

Campaigning? Yes. Brilliant? I still have to go with no. It's easy to tell a room what they want to hear. It's not so easy to tell them what needs to happen and then still get their vote. When that happens, I'll call him brilliant.

[Max Peck]

Truth is Superman, but Donald Trump is pure Kryptonite

So far, Trump’s critics have seemed too angry to be able to see what’s behind his seeming imperviousness to them. But there is no making sense of the Trump phenomenon, let alone figuring out a plausible strategy for addressing it, unless you stifle your outrage long enough to examine it with dispassion.

This is not just a question of who’s right and who’s wrong on particular political issues. The problem is that there is very little in the establishment — not just Democrats but corporate Republicans, let alone Wall Street Republicans — that pays respect to, or even reflects at all, the concerns and world view of voters who are more — choose your word — conservative, religious, parochial, Main Street, rural, fearful, economically insecure, salt-of-the-earth, local, Wal-Mart, above-ground pool, bridge-and-tunnel, non-calorie-counters, drinkers of sugary sodas . . . .

The gap is so wide that it is no longer enough to talk about different parties or ideologies. It’s almost as if there were two alternate universes of political discourse.

When a critic from Universe A states that a lie was told by an avatar of Universe B, the population of Universe A says that a lie was told — and the population of Universe B says that the sound emitted by the critic from Universe A is just a bleat from an ox that’s just been gored.

Universe A says it’s a fact that a given massacre wouldn’t have taken place without the availability of guns. Universe B hears nothing except the fact that Universe A wants to take its guns away. Universe A says it’s a fact that immigrants contribute more to U.S. society than they take from it. All that Universe B hears is the establishment campaigning for continued access to cheap labor.

There is no interpenetration of truths.

[Holman]

Campaigning? Yes. Brilliant? I still have to go with no. It's easy to tell a room what they want to hear. It's not so easy to tell them what needs to happen and then still get their vote. When that happens, I'll call him brilliant.

That's leadership. This is campaigning.

[GreenGoo]

I hate to keep belaboring this point, but Trump is a brilliant campaigner because his campaigning has put him on top. Folks keep wanting to challenge the meaning of "great" or "brilliant" when what we're seeing is real-time redefinition of "campaigning."

I disagree, but not for the same reasons hepcat disagrees. You absolutely can run a brilliant campaign based on fear, xenophobia (I hate it every time I see fear and xenophobia beside each other. Might as well write "fear and fear" but understanding the nature of specific fear is useful) and playing to humanity's more base instincts.

I don't think Trump is running a brilliant campaign based on those things. He's running around randomly and those things are working. He has no plan that I can discern. It was Mexicans before and it's Muslims now, but at no point does it come off as planned with specific actions for specific outcomes. He's just Trump being Trump (plus a lot more hate than I would have normally accredit to him) and it's working. That's not brilliant campaigning (a campaign involves some over arching strategy and then well thought out tactics to specific ends) in my opinion. That's just being the right megalomaniac at the right time.

If we think about it from a different angle, would you say his campaign this time around is MORE brilliant than his campaign the last time? What aspects do you feel he's honed and implemented with brilliant strategy and planning? Is it something he's done this time that is resulting in his success, that he did not do the last time?

Honestly, it wouldn't surprise me for a second that in Trump's deepest heart of hearts, he's as surprised as the rest of us over his success.

[GreenGoo]

I have a serious question/comment.

Last week I saw a comment on Facebook where someone said something to the nature, " I can't get a signal on my phone in my office but someone in ISIS can post a video of a beheading from the desert in Syria "

What my interpretation of Trumps comments about "turning off the internet", is how he responded last night. He wants to limit access to those in countries like Syria and how much they can or can't communicate.

Am I interpreting this wrong? Is he saying something else or do we not have the ability to do this? I'm asking in all seriousness because I'm not that familiar with the infrastructure. Can we realistically do this or is it political hogwash?

It's more complicated than that. The US could absolutely keep content they don't like out of the US (in general. Proxies would allow the content in/out but not in bulk). That would require a locking down of the US portion of the internet. Now, the US is has a disproportionate amount of the Internet's infrastructure, but it doesn't have it all. The US could impact what information reaches the average American, but what it can't do (not because it's hard, but because that's not how things work) is turn off portions of the internet for everyone else. The only way to stop Syrian based information from reaching Canada would be to go to war with Canada or at least get our government to agree to censor us at the behest of the US. That's gonna be a tough sell to anyone.

Other ways the US could impact the internet would be to go after corporations with new laws. So the Government could go after Facebook for showing videos that the US government doesn't like. And if Facebook moved to another country, they could go after Zuckerberg in all sorts of harassing ways. But even the things the US COULD do are not particularly viable, and some might be considered unconstitutional.

The short version is that the US could become China, throw a giant firewall around itself and also murder all data they don't like going through it (which is a LOT of data. See my comment about the US having a large portion of the internet infrastructure on US soil). That doesn't turn off Syria, but it does censor the crap out of the American people. Whether that is politically viable or even legal, well...you have cavity searches at airports now, so I have no idea.

Someone on OO has a sig that, paraphrased, is something like "the internet identifies censorship as damage and routes around it" and that's basically true. The internet is a web of tubes. The US has control over it's own tubes, but not the rest of the world's. Trying to get the rest of the world to agree to stopping data from Syria from travelling on their tubes is, quite frankly, not possible.

And to clarify something I touched on earlier, China has tried to censor their people, but proxies have allowed the chinese to get in and out of the country (data-wise) without official approval of the government. Imagine how much easier it would be for a country based on personal liberty/freedom, including economic freedom (businesses). The US would be the largest sieve ever created.

Trump is proposing a solution with no technical solution. He might as well call for not letting Syrians use gravity. He might spend billions of dollars and have an elaborate structure of beams and girders holding everything off the ground, but that doesn't mean the apple you just dropped won't fall to the ground.

How's that for an analogy? I'm working on getting some really outlandish stuff into my posts.

[Jeff V]

It was Mexicans before and it's Muslims now, but at no point does it come of as planned with specific actions for specific outcomes.

Seems you forgot about the Great Wall of Texas he will make the Mexicans build to keep themselves out.

[GreenGoo]

A comparison that might make more sense to those not familiar with the internet would be the telephone.

Does it make sense for the US to propose a ban on phone calls out of Syria?

[Jaymann]

This is even stupider than "tubes".

TRUMP: We should be using our brilliant people. Our most brilliant mind to figure a way that ISIS cannot use the internet. And then on second, we should be able to penetrate the internet and find out exactly where ISIS is and everything about ISIS. We can do that if we use our good people.

BLITZER: Let me follow up, Mr. Trump. So, are you open to closing parts of the internet?

TRUMP: I would certainly be open to closing areas where we are at war with somebody. I sure as hell don't want to let people that want to kill us and kill our nation use our internet. Yes, sir. I am.

Trump is a real-estate man. Location, location, location.

I have a serious question/comment.

Last week I saw a comment on Facebook where someone said something to the nature, " I can't get a signal on my phone in my office but someone in ISIS can post a video of a beheading from the desert in Syria "

What my interpretation of Trumps comments about "turning off the internet", is how he responded last night. He wants to limit access to those in countries like Syria and how much they can or can't communicate.

Am I interpreting this wrong? Is he saying something else or do we not have the ability to do this? I'm asking in all seriousness because I'm not that familiar with the infrastructure. Can we realistically do this or is it political hogwash?

I know China controls internet access in China. But I think you would need cooperation from the country you are trying to restrict. And as with most things I'm sure there is a work around.

[hepcat]

Campaigning? Yes. Brilliant? I still have to go with no. It's easy to tell a room what they want to hear. It's not so easy to tell them what needs to happen and then still get their vote. When that happens, I'll call him brilliant.

That's leadership. This is campaigning.

I'm feeling anti semantic at this point.

[Xmann]

I have a serious question/comment.

Last week I saw a comment on Facebook where someone said something to the nature, " I can't get a signal on my phone in my office but someone in ISIS can post a video of a beheading from the desert in Syria "

What my interpretation of Trumps comments about "turning off the internet", is how he responded last night. He wants to limit access to those in countries like Syria and how much they can or can't communicate.

Am I interpreting this wrong? Is he saying something else or do we not have the ability to do this? I'm asking in all seriousness because I'm not that familiar with the infrastructure. Can we realistically do this or is it political hogwash?

It's more complicated than that. The US could absolutely keep content they don't like out of the US (in general. Proxies would allow the content in/out but not in bulk). That would require a locking down of the US portion of the internet. Now, the US is has a disproportionate amount of the Internet's infrastructure, but it doesn't have it all. The US could impact what information reaches the average American, but what it can't do (not because it's hard, but because that's not how things work) is turn off portions of the internet for everyone else. The only way to stop Syrian based information from reaching Canada would be to go to war with Canada or at least get our government to agree to censor us at the behest of the US. That's gonna be a tough sell to anyone.

Other ways the US could impact the internet would be to go after corporations with new laws. So the Government could go after Facebook for showing videos that the US government doesn't like. And if Facebook moved to another country, they could go after Zuckerberg in all sorts of harassing ways. But even the things the US COULD do are not particularly viable, and some might be considered unconstitutional.

The short version is that the US could become China, throw a giant firewall around it and also murder all data they don't like going through it (which is a LOT of data. See my comment about the US having a large portion of the internet infrastructure on US soil). That doesn't turn off Syria, but it does censor the crap out of the American people. Whether that is politically viable or even legal, well...you have cavity searches at airports now, so I have no idea.

Someone on OO has a sig that, paraphrased, is something like "the internet identifies censorship as damage and routes around it" and that's basically true. The internet is a web of tubes. The US has control over it's own tubes, but not the rest of the world's. Trying to get the rest of the world to agree to stopping data from Syria from travelling on their tubes is, quite frankly, not possible.

And to clarify something I touched on earlier, China has tried to censor their people, but proxies have allowed the chinese to get in and out of the country (data-wise) without official approval of the government. Imagine how much easier it would be for a country based on personal liberty/freedom, including economic freedom (businesses). The US would be the largest sieve ever created.

Trump is proposing a solution with no technical solution. He might as well call for not letting Syrians use gravity. He might spend billions of dollars and have an elaborate structure of beams and girders holding everything off the ground, but that doesn't mean the apple you just dropped won't fall to the ground.

How's that for an analogy? I'm working on getting some really outlandish stuff into my posts.

Thank you for that.

I really had no idea if that (what he is suggesting) is realistic.

[Isgrimnur]

Some Three Letter Agency bricked some third-world country's internet backbone when they were attempting to install spyware on the routers. It's possible to take out geographic areas of internet access. Taking out access points to a country can make things really difficult really quickly.

[GreenGoo]

Thank you for that.

I really had no idea if that (what he is suggesting) is realistic.

Another way to approach it would be cut off all communication into and out of Syria, but you'd need all of Syria's neighbours on board, and then those pesky radio waves would poke holes in any data siege anyway.

That's a bigger job than "getting our most brillant people to turn off Syria's internet".

And that's just from a, well not a layman, but I'm not a network engineer working at the backbone layer. There might be additional things that can be done to reduce communication with Syria, but nothing I can think of.

And that's not even touching on the idea of turning off all communication into and out of a country because you don't like what some of the people inside it are doing and saying. A communication embargo has some ethical problems that are particularly vexing when it is suggested by a country who has freedom of information built into it's core defining documents.

[Holman]

I hate to keep belaboring this point, but Trump is a brilliant campaigner because his campaigning has put him on top. Folks keep wanting to challenge the meaning of "great" or "brilliant" when what we're seeing is real-time redefinition of "campaigning."

I disagree, but not for the same reasons hepcat disagrees. You absolutely can run a brilliant campaign based on fear, xenophobia (I hate it every time I see fear and xenophobia beside each other. Might as well write "fear and fear" but understanding the nature of specific fear is useful) and playing to humanity's more base instincts.

I don't think Trump is running a brilliant campaign based on those things. He's running around randomly and those things are working. He has no plan that I can discern. It was Mexicans before and it's Muslims now, but at no point does it come off as planned with specific actions for specific outcomes. He's just Trump being Trump (plus a lot more hate than I would have normally accredit to him) and it's working. That's not brilliant campaigning (a campaign involves some over arching strategy and then well thought out tactics to specific ends) in my opinion. That's just being the right megalomaniac at the right time.

If we think about it from a different angle, would you say his campaign this time around is MORE brilliant than his campaign the last time? What aspects do you feel he's honed and implemented with brilliant strategy and planning? Is it something he's done this time that is resulting in his success, that he did not do the last time?

Honestly, it wouldn't surprise me for a second that in Trump's deepest heart of hearts, he's as surprised as the rest of us over his success.

I'm not sure it's worth arguing at this point. You're saying it's not brilliant because it's got a random element. I'm saying it's brilliant (well, actually I have usually said "great" and should stick to that as it has slightly different connotations) because it's stupendously effective at everything a campaign aims to do.

Trump's campaign is shitty as sermon but great as improv. It's a bad symphony but excellent jazz. How about that?

As for what he's doing differently this time, I think the answer is that he's tacking a course unavailable to others: he has tapped into 25 years of conservative rage but has done it basically as an independent without ties to Washington. He has figured out how to run to the right of the pack except in precisely those areas where running to the right looks like ideology rather than passion. He has doubled down time and again in ways no career politician would risk, and so far the gamble has worked. He has figured out how to be what everyone means when they call someone a Maverick.

(Did Trump do all of this worse last time? I assume he did. Maybe he tried too hard to sound presidential; maybe he hadn't tapped in to his inner iconoclast; maybe the Establishment was stronger then. In any case, taking advantage of rivals' weakness and missteps is part of great strategy. One book on Napoleon's campaigns is called Blundering to Glory.)

Maybe Trump is a stumbling, clueless hack, but it sure doesn't look like it--and more importantly doesn't work like it. He may be about to hit his limit, but right now? Plenty of presidents have been elected with less brilliant-seeming campaigns than this.

[Jeff V]

The only way to stop Syrian based information from reaching Canada would be to go to war with Canada

If you insist...

[GreenGoo]

The only way to stop Syrian based information from reaching Canada would be to go to war with Canada

If you insist...

It's probably easier to just occupy Syria than to occupy the other 194 countries that are neither the US nor Syria.

But hey, jobs and whatnot.

[LawBeefaroni]

Thank you for that.

I really had no idea if that (what he is suggesting) is realistic.

It's not very realistic. But even if it were, it would do severe damage to US interests to implement.

Let's say that Cisco or whoever had a kill-switch in all their network hardware that could cripple critical network infrastructure in a country. And let's say the US government demanded that they activate them in Syria. Every single country in the world that is not the US would reconsider all hardware purchases from the US. Or let's say the strongarm Facebook and Google and other US based social media to route around Syria. Users around the world will flock to non-US alternatives.


It's unlikely to even work but if it does, it is highly likely to backfire. That's what I'd consider an undesirable policy.

[GreenGoo]

I'm not sure it's worth arguing at this point. You're saying it's not brilliant because it's got a random element. I'm saying it's brilliant (well, actually I have usually said "great" and should stick to that as it has slightly different connotations) because it's stupendously effective at everything a campaign aims to do.

And that's fine. You can find my argument about why success is not necessarily an indicator of good strategy in my posts. I've made it multiple times.

You can definitely make a case for any strategy is a good strategy if it works, but as I've written, I don't like that definition, and not because it results in Trump being a great campaigner, but because it falls to address other factors that contribute to success besides planning and executing a well great campaign.

As an extreme example, let's say that Trump campaigns by spitting on people. All candidates beside Trump are at a meeting when a meteor falls on them. Trump, being the only one left, leaps to the forefront.

Is Trump still a great campaigner? We can both agree (I think) that my example is silly, but I think it nicely illustrates that there are more factors that influence success than simply one's own actions. And if that's the case, I think that clearly debunks "any strategy that results in success is a good strategy" as the sole way to judge success.

So if success can happen despite poor strategy, well, that leaves evaluating Trump's campaign on other merits besides just success.

And on that note, I've already written what I think of his "strategy" as I see it.

I'm not impressed with his campaign or his campaigning, despite how obviously successful he has been.

And just so we're clear, there are many positions between "great campaigner" and "stumbling buffoon that just got lucky". He is an absolute brilliant marketer, and is using those skills extremely effectively here. Do I think he's put together a "great marketing campaign" rather than political campaign? The answer is still no, but it's a lot closer to yes.

Many people will argue that political campaigning is the same thing as marketing, and while I too think they are very close, I'd like to believe that picking a candidate to run for the Prez of the US of A is different in some ways than deciding which soap to buy.

Maybe I'm delusional. How would I know?

[Defiant]

I have a serious question/comment.

Last week I saw a comment on Facebook where someone said something to the nature, " I can't get a signal on my phone in my office but someone in ISIS can post a video of a beheading from the desert in Syria "

What my interpretation of Trumps comments about "turning off the internet", is how he responded last night. He wants to limit access to those in countries like Syria and how much they can or can't communicate.

Am I interpreting this wrong? Is he saying something else or do we not have the ability to do this? I'm asking in all seriousness because I'm not that familiar with the infrastructure. Can we realistically do this or is it political hogwash?

To be sure, the intertubes is a potential avenue for attack that is often overlooked. Someone can, in theory, do damage that would affect a lot more people via the internet than in person (eg, if they can manage to take down some of the electrical grids).

As to turning off the internet - he could, in theory, isolate the US (the way China does, Egypt did for a while during the Arab spring, and a few other countries do), though it would be very difficult even if he could get the support to do it (note the people in China and Egypt had avenues to circumvent their firewall, some put in place by us). I would also imagine that it would cost us economically (not to mention in freedom) to isolate our internet.

Another option would be to isolate Syria, but then you need the cooperation of the countries around Syria (and even then, you will still have none wire based internet access which would have to be addressed as well). And even then, you could still have someone go from Syria to a neighboring country and do the work from there.

[GreenGoo]

I would also imagine that it would cost us economically (not to mention in freedom) to isolate our internet.

I've been thinking on that. The answer is almost certainly yes, but not as much as I originally thought. Turning off e-commerce within the US would be disastrous, but isolating the US wouldn't require that. Most retail level e-commerce never leaves the boundaries of the US portion of the internet now, so nothng would change there.

Now communication would be hindered (I say hindered and not stopped because even China still has internet access, it's just heavily censored) at the international level and that would certainly cause some trade issues.

And let's not lose sight of the problem that he's trying to fix, which, apparently, is stopping videos from getting out of Syria. Well a memory stick and a guy with legs could just walk it out. Or mail it out. Or walk it out then mail it. Whatever.

Now if the real problem is Terrorists using the internet/social media to communicate/coordinate, well then good luck with stopping that. The UK is trying to outlaw encryption, which might seem like it makes a lot of sense, until you realize that 99.9% of e-commerce is encrypted. See what happens to e-commerce when people start transmitting their CC numbers in clear text across the internet.

It's then becomes the equivalent of giving a random stranger your cash and asking them to go buy something for you from the store. it'll only take a couple of major incidents before people stop buying stuff online. You've destroyed the online portion of your economy just to make sure some Terrorists have a harder time talking to each other (and let's face it, they'll just find another way). So billions of transactions just stop because some politician found out that Terrorists talk to each other on grindr.

My personal position is that a free society and unfettered access to information trump everything else. That doesn't mean there aren't ways of making Terrorists lives more difficult. What needs to be considered is what you're giving up to accomplish that, and then evaluate it based on the facts. The rhetoric about stopping Terrorists from sharing shopping lists online outweighing all other concerns (because, Terrorists! Also, Children!) is ludicrous in my opinion.

A rational discussion of what can be done, what would be gained and what would be lost, and then a decision made based on those facts, I'm all for. I'm sick of politicians (and have been for well over a decade) pointing at scary scarf wearing people and using that as justification for undermining the foundations of freedom and liberty.

Show me practical solutions that provide real gains and we can talk. I do NOT want to hear how the NSA needs an ear in every household in the US because TERRORISTS.

[Holman]

And that's fine. You can find my argument about why success is not necessarily an indicator of good strategy in my posts. I've made it multiple times.

You can definitely make a case for any strategy is a good strategy if it works, but as I've written, I don't like that definition, and not because it results in Trump being a great campaigner, but because it falls to address other factors that contribute to success besides planning and executing a well great campaign.

As an extreme example, let's say that Trump campaigns by spitting on people. All candidates beside Trump are at a meeting when a meteor falls on them. Trump, being the only one left, leaps to the forefront.

Is Trump still a great campaigner? We can both agree (I think) that my example is silly, but I think it nicely illustrates that there are more factors that influence success than simply one's own actions. And if that's the case, I think that clearly debunks "any strategy that results in success is a good strategy" as the sole way to judge success.

So if success can happen despite poor strategy, well, that leaves evaluating Trump's campaign on other merits besides just success.

And on that note, I've already written what I think of his "strategy" as I see it.

I'm not impressed with his campaign or his campaigning, despite how obviously successful he has been.

Just to be clear: I'm not pushing this discussion because I want to crush your definition and force your surrender and hear the lamentations of the women. I'm interested in trying to parse the Trump phenomenon because it's so fascinating and scary.

Anyway, I think a political campaign is precisely one of those areas where "any strategy that results in success is a good strategy" actually *is* true. Political campaigns are ephemeral and disposable. They expire on election day, if not before, and it doesn't matter whether they can ever be replicated. Lee Atwater knew this, James Carville knew it, Karl Rove knew it, and Donald Trump knows it.

I laid out my criteria for a strong campaign above: it gets the message out, attracts supporters, shapes the issues under discussion, and exerts more influence on opponents than they exert on you. Trump is excelling at all of these, and not because a meteor fell on his rivals. It's because he has tapped into something Republican voters want and the GOP isn't yet prepared to give them outside of gerrymandered safety.

(Incidentally, I believe the criteria above point to something more than just marketing soap. This campaign is shaping policy already, or potential policy. Last night's debate suggested new twists on war, torture, and surveillance that most of us probably wish were settled and safely off the table.)

In fact, I think the "greatness" (I mean this technically) of Trump's campaign might even transcend victory or defeat at this point. Even if he loses now, he has shaped the cycle and set the narrative. He has overshadowed not just one or two rivals but a whole field of them. Several of these (Bush, Rubio, Walker, Paul) were thought to be forces to reckon with, and others (Carson, Fiorina) were outsiders who might have been expected to have a shot like his. Cruz--the unthinkable, punchable Cruz--is rising essentially on Trump's coattails. If Trump crashed and burned in January, pundits would still look back on his run and have to call it an extremely powerful outsider campaign. Whose has been better?

I think the best way to understand Trump as a success is to compare him to those whose campaigns are obviously weak. Unfortunately I don't have time to do it because I've got to get to work and because there are still so damn many of them.

[LawBeefaroni]

That doesn't mean there aren't ways of making Terrorists lives more difficult. What needs to be considered is what you're giving up to accomplish that, and then evaluate it based on the facts.

WW4CD?

[GreenGoo]

Now if the real problem is Terrorists using the internet/social media to communicate/coordinate, well then good luck with stopping that. The UK is trying to outlaw encryption, which might seem like it makes a lot of sense, until you realize that 99.9% of e-commerce is encrypted. See what happens to e-commerce when people start transmitting their CC numbers in clear text across the internet.

Sorry for quoting myself, but this next bit is important and is related to the above.

The POODLE attack is a direct result of the US trying to limit encryption use by enemies of the state. The article linked is a good one, but might be too technical for a layperson. More in a minute.

The US put heavy export limitations on encryption technology. The plan was for only the US (and allies, I assume) to own strong encryption. The problem is that the internet is an international place, and places like the US need to be able to talk to places like Syria. So servers and browsers and whatnot had to be able to speak both good (hard to break) and bad (easy to break) encryption. How do servers know which type of encryption to use? Well, they use the highest they can. But if the guy on the other side doesn't speak "Good" encryption then the choice is "bad" encryption.

To clarify the above, the US made it illegal to give "good" encryption to people not on the "list". Servers need to talk to people on and off the list, so they need to speak both good and bad encryption.

And that's how and why downgrade attacks exist. Hacker wants to talk to your bank. Bank says "I speak good encryption". Hacker says "sorry, I only speak bad encryption". Bank says "No problem, I speak bad encryption too". Hacker says "thanks, you've just made my formerly impossible job doable, because bad encryption is easy to break (by design, by US government plan)".

At some point (2010 maybe?) the US made changes to it's export limitations on encryption. Awesome. Years of evidence and experience resulted in a loosening of export restrictions. Great. Now EVERYONE can speak "good" encryption. Except there were thousands and millions of machines on the internet that were still backwards compatible with the "bad" encryption, and without active configuration change, could and would still talk "bad" encryption if asked.

So even after the US corrected it's mistake (imo, but a very reasonable mistake given the decision was based on WWII experiences with cryptography), all sorts of machines could be made more vulnerable because even though the law hand changed, the old technology hadn't been removed. It mostly has, now.

This topic falls under Fishpants' job description and he knows way more than I do on the subject, and can probably correct any mistakes I've made here.

The important take away from all this is that restricting encryption HAS ALREADY BEEN TRIED, and it failed spectacularly. In fact it failed so spectacularly that it made the news and everyone was all atwitter about their data security and omg omg omg what are we gonna do?

The idea that the UK is trying to kill encryption in the same year that everyone went NUTS because machines were vulnerable because of weak encryption is insane.

The idea has been floated in US political circles too. The NSA wants a backdoor into every popular device out there (because backdoors can't be exploited by anyone who's not the NSA, duh. That's just logic). That's not paranoia, that's fact. The lessons that we are still learning the hard way seem to be sailing right over the heads of a lot people.

Trump hasn't asked for the outlawing of encryption, but that's a natural end point of those trying to "fix" the terrorist/internet "problem". If he continues to talk about "fixing" the internet for Syria with our "brilliant people", he will end up on encryption. Keep this in mind the next time he opens his mouth.

[GreenGoo]

Just to be clear: I'm not pushing this discussion because I want to crush your definition and force your surrender and hear the lamentations of the women. I'm interested in trying to parse the Trump phenomenon because it's so fascinating and scary.

Either way it's all good.

In this case I just don't share the theory that he is a great campaigner (which I hear as "brilliant strategist") based on what I've seen. Since I'm not following him around and hanging off his every word and action, I fully admit I don't have all the facts and could be wrong. of course, I don't think I am.

[GreenGoo]

That doesn't mean there aren't ways of making Terrorists lives more difficult. What needs to be considered is what you're giving up to accomplish that, and then evaluate it based on the facts.

WW4CD?

My early support for Anonymous has since waned. They are a force for annoyance at best. They can destroy a few lives if they try really hard, but that'd hardly dent a situation like this.

4Chan is just where the dumber followers of Anonymous hang out.

[LawBeefaroni]

That doesn't mean there aren't ways of making Terrorists lives more difficult. What needs to be considered is what you're giving up to accomplish that, and then evaluate it based on the facts.

WW4CD?

My early support for Anonymous has since waned. They are a force for annoyance at best. They can destroy a few lives if they try really hard, but that'd hardly dent a situation like this.

4Chan is just where the dumber followers of Anonymous hang out.

I don't mean use them, I mean think like they do. Use the internet in new and creative ways to make someone's life miserable. A government agency could do great things. Great things.

[El Guapo]

I mean, how hard is it to clog a few tubes, especially if you have some brilliant minds around?

[Zaxxon]

Can we just suggest that Comcast take over all providers in the middle east and institute draconian data caps?

[El Guapo]

Can we just suggest that Comcast take over all providers in the middle east and institute draconian data caps?

See? Brilliant mind right there, has a solution right off the top of his head.

[Zaxxon]

Let me tell you, I'd be the greatest president this country has seen. And the healthiest. And I'd be harder on ISIS than you could possibly believe. And...

[Rip]

Let me tell you, I'd be the greatest president this country has seen. And the healthiest. And I'd be harder on ISIS than you could possibly believe. And...

And money, we would have more money than we have ever had before. I'd make deals with the Russians and the Chinese. Best deals ever because that is what I do, I make deals. Great deals and we would be rich.

[Defiant]

It sounds like Trump has clarified his position from the internet to removing internet access from part/all of Syria/Iraq.

I'm not sure whet the pros/cons of such a move would be, though it's at least a less outlandish concept (provided we could get the other countries necessary to go along with it).

[Kraken]

"The internet interprets censorship as damage and routes around it."

[GreenGoo]

It sounds like Trump has clarified his position from the internet to removing internet access from part/all of Syria/Iraq.

I'm not sure whet the pros/cons of such a move would be, though it's at least a less outlandish concept (provided we could get the other countries necessary to go along with it).

How is this different? Assuming a country can have all communication links severed (not literally) including satellite is a pretty big assumption.

Trump originally suggested shutting down that "area" meaning Syria. That's not really possible all the way back in the US. So then we talked about keeping Syrian data out of the US (still impossible but slightly less so).

How is removing Syria from the internet any different from removing internet access for Syrians?

I must be missing something because his original suggestion was gibberish, and you're clarification doesn't change anything as far as I can tell. If you (or anyone) can explain to me what Trump means when he clarifies that he would "remove internet access" from part/all of Syria/Iraq. Defiant suggests getting buy-in from all the necessary countries, but that list seems like it would be extremely unwieldy in size and contain countries not particularly likely to do as they're told by the US.

I'm not trying to be a dick here, I really don't get what he's suggesting (or if I do, how he thinks it will work).

[GreenGoo]

Let me tell you, I'd be the greatest president this country has seen. And the healthiest. And I'd be harder on ISIS than you could possibly believe. And...

And money, we would have more money than we have ever had before. I'd make deals with the Russians and the Chinese. Best deals ever because that is what I do, I make deals. Great deals and we would be rich.

[GreenGoo]

That doesn't mean there aren't ways of making Terrorists lives more difficult. What needs to be considered is what you're giving up to accomplish that, and then evaluate it based on the facts.

WW4CD?

My early support for Anonymous has since waned. They are a force for annoyance at best. They can destroy a few lives if they try really hard, but that'd hardly dent a situation like this.

4Chan is just where the dumber followers of Anonymous hang out.

I don't mean use them, I mean think like they do. Use the internet in new and creative ways to make someone's life miserable. A government agency could do great things. Great things.

I think if we tried to think like they do, our heads would explode. It is my understanding that you are a 4chan member or you are not. Your brain is wired at birth for that sort of thing.

I feel like you're being more clever than I'm capable of following.

[Rip]

"The internet interprets censorship as damage and routes around it."

That sounds nice but it is rather ignorant of how it really works. BGP protocol routes around it. Give me control of BGP routes and I can turn whatever IP ranges I want on and off. It is just a protocol and where there is protocol there is the ability to manipulate whatever the protocol controls.

[Defiant]

How is removing Syria from the internet any different from removing internet access for Syrians?

I must be missing something because his original suggestion was gibberish, and you're clarification doesn't change anything as far as I can tell. If you (or anyone) can explain to me what Trump means when he clarifies that he would "remove internet access" from part/all of Syria/Iraq. Defiant suggests getting buy-in from all the necessary countries, but that list seems like it would be extremely unwieldy in size and contain countries not particularly likely to do as they're told by the US.

I'm not trying to be a dick here, I really don't get what he's suggesting (or if I do, how he thinks it will work).

Something like this.

Apparently, it would take four well placed cuts to block the internet.

"Syria has 4 physical cables that connect it to the rest of the Internet," wrote Matthew Prince, CEO of CloudFlare, in a blog on tech site Gizmodo. "Three are undersea cables that land in the city of Tartous, Syria. The fourth is an over-land cable through Turkey. In order for a whole-country outage, all four of these cables would have had to been cut simultaneously. That is unlikely to have happened."

Of course, satellite access would still be available, and that would need buy in to prevent people from accessing it. I would imagine the equipment isn't easily available, though.

[GreenGoo]

"The internet interprets censorship as damage and routes around it."

That sounds nice but it is rather ignorant of how it really works. BGP protocol routes around it. Give me control of BGP routes and I can turn whatever IP ranges I want on and off. It is just a protocol and where there is protocol there is the ability to manipulate whatever the protocol controls.

a) You can only control your own routes, I thought.
b) ip ranges aren't geolocated. At least I didn't think so.

As I said, I'm not (in fact I'm a long ways from) a network engineer.

edit: A quick looksee at the wiki page doesn't change my opinion. Of course you can control (in theory) who US based companies talk to, but you can't control who other countries companies talk to. This seems to be the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling "we're not listening".

To Defiant: I am completely ignorant about how vulnerable large communication grids are, and I do understand that many countries (including the US) have some seriously large cables throwing their data around, but, and here I'm speculating, that would only work in the short term. You'd have to control every wire entering and exiting the country to keep communication down permanently (or any extended period of time). It depends on your goals, I guess. This brings to mind North Korea's outage, so maybe it is as simple as just snipping a few (really fat) wires. I'll read up on it.

[gbasden]

"The internet interprets censorship as damage and routes around it."

That sounds nice but it is rather ignorant of how it really works. BGP protocol routes around it. Give me control of BGP routes and I can turn whatever IP ranges I want on and off. It is just a protocol and where there is protocol there is the ability to manipulate whatever the protocol controls.

Sure, assuming you have control of all routing. But we don't, as least as far as I know. And that doesn't change the fact that even if we could black out all of that area, dude couldn't upload a video to a thumb drive and sneak it into Turkey, or Saudi Arabia and get it to where it needs to go. Trying to stop the flow of ideas by killing the internet just isn't going to work without destroying the internet itself.