Ignorant article writes fighting words to click-bait readers.<p>I listen to CSPAN every day, and heard Clinton say these words. Read the Washington Post criticism on this issue, which was more balanced.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.washingtonpost.com&#x2F;news&#x2F;the-switch&#x2F;wp&#x2F;2015&#x2F;12&#x2F;22&#x2F;clinton-and-trump-are-looking-for-an-easy-out-on-the-internet-dont-give-it-to-them&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.washingtonpost.com&#x2F;news&#x2F;the-switch&#x2F;wp&#x2F;2015&#x2F;12&#x2F;22...</a><p>Or even <i></i>better<i></i>, listen to Clinton so that you get the story straight from the horse&#x27;s mouth. To see the game of &quot;telephone&quot; amplifying wtfs throughout the echochaimber bothers me severely. The technology exists to get your news directly from the source.<p>Why do you need a reporter from Vice to tell you what your opinion should be on something Clinton said? Why don&#x27;t you just listen to what Clinton said herself, and then make an opinion?<p>At worst, Clinton simply demonstrated her extreme ignorance on this issue. She has no idea how encryption works, and was just saying words. She knows enough that she doesn&#x27;t want to &quot;break&quot; encryption however, she&#x27;s simply calling for computer scientists to think about the issue.