A hot topic brought up often in the search for America's next president is the security and privacy of the country's citizens. Unfortunately, such matters rarely find themselves in the hands of politicians who truly understand what they're talking about, and we saw just such an example again Saturday night, during the Democratic presidential debate.
During the debate, Hillary Clinton tried to put viewers at ease with the assurance that she has no desire to force companies to engineer back doors in their software that the government could access. "I would not want to go to that point." In her next breath, she contradicts herself: "It doesn't do anybody any good if terrorists can move toward encrypted communication that no law enforcement agency can break into."
On one hand, Clinton doesn't want back doors, but on the other, she wants law enforcement to be able to gain access to data if needed. She seals the deal with: "I just think there's got to be a way, and I would hope our tech companies would work with government to figure it out." Making matters worse she ponders, "maybe the back door is the wrong door?"
Clinton went on to say that maybe we need a "Manhattan-like project" to accomplish this goal. What she doesn't seem to realize is that what she's effectively asking for is a back door, and as soon as any company (or person, for that matter) deliberately punches a hole in their product's security, it's no longer secure. Period. Access is access, no matter how you slice it or what you call it.
As if it wasn't sad enough that Clinton just doesn't seem to "get it," she makes matters worse by believing that the problem can be solved if we just toss a bunch of bright minds into the same room and throw money at them. It's also a bit strange to compare a project like she was envisioning to one that resulted in the creation of the Atomic Bomb, which led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people.
During the debate, Clinton uttered: "I don't know enough about the technology".
That sums things up nicely