&gt;  There is ample opportunity for Clinton to be informed.<p>I agree with this, which is why I don&#x27;t plan on voting for her. But to call her a &quot;threat&quot; when her only threat is &quot;being ignorant&quot; is making mountains out of molehills.<p>But sure, hyperventilate about a made up issue if you like. There&#x27;s actual issues in this country to care about, and you&#x27;re welcome to misrepresent Clinton&#x27;s words to self-manufacture an enemy if you want to.<p>I&#x27;m simply calling out the Vice article for doing so.<p>In case you don&#x27;t see it, the politics of the situation are obvious. The defense hawks want us to do something about encryption because ISIS is now clearly using VPN, TOR, and other forms of readily-available encryption to communicate with each other.<p>In particular, the connection of the San Bernadina shooters to ISIS seems to have only been discovered through private communication. (not quite TOR, but they only could have discovered that fact using non-publicly available information if you know what I mean). The Paris Attack was <i></i>coordinated<i></i> entirely within encrypted communications.<p>And the fact of the matter is, the US has absolutely no power against such a space. Clinton wants to appeal to the defense hawks, by claiming she has a solution. But she&#x27;s also balancing her talk by occasionally saying &quot;Apple&quot; and &quot;I&#x27;m against Backdoors&quot;.<p>IE: She&#x27;s being a politician, and she&#x27;s ignorantly pretending to believe there&#x27;s a solution here. The fact remains: any weakening of encryption is tantamount to a backdoor, and doing nothing is unacceptable to the defense hawks. So Clinton&#x27;s best move is either to play dumb, or actually be dumb.