Politicians legislating for technology is the best real life example of the blind leading the deaf I've ever seen. We should add a constitutional amendment that requires the voting representatives understand the topic for which they're voting in order to have their votes count.
Intelligence Committee Leaders Release Discussion Draft of Encryption Bill
51–60 of 275 posts
Re: Intelligence Committee Leaders Release Discussion Draft of Encryption Bill
#52Maybe I'm a bit confused; if this bill were to pass, would this make SSH illegal? How about geli on FreeBSD? Am I going to be required to hand over my encryption keys on my server?
Re: Intelligence Committee Leaders Release Discussion Draft of Encryption Bill
#53It feels like everyone would be better served if the tech community admitted the legitimacy of the government's (and many, MANY people's) security concerns and stopped pretending that the right to privacy always trumps the right to security of the person. (All occurrences of the string "secur" in that EFF letter[1], for instance, are in reference to data and computer systems. Not one is in [direct] reference to peopl…
Many have noted this isn't about security vs. privacy. It's about security vs. security [1] [2] [3]
Also, I think there's something different about getting access to someone's digital communications that makes digital data different from data previously obtained by warrants. Digital databases increasingly contain the entire history of people's communications. That's never been true before and it warrants additional discussion at the very least.
The other argument against this bill is it is unenforceable. Terrorists won't be using the government-mandated encryption tools. They'll create their own.
This is an opportunity for technologists to step up and take a larger role within government by educating representatives and the public, starting campaigns or non-profits, or perhaps running for office.
[1] https://youtu.be/g1GgnbN9oNw?t=3h35m52s
Re: Intelligence Committee Leaders Release Discussion Draft of Encryption Bill
#54The plain-spoken language of the bill is irritating, because it hides how much assistance it provides to the existing surveillance machinery.
For example, it doesn't exempt the FISA court, as far as I can tell, and seems to embrace that use.
I'm having a little trouble with the paradoxes... "Nothing in this Act may be construed to authorize any government officer to require or prohibit any specific design". Is this a fig leaf? If you design a system that makes it impossible for you to comply with the act, you're still required to comply, right?
I pray this can't pass in my country.
Re: Intelligence Committee Leaders Release Discussion Draft of Encryption Bill
#55What Silicon Valley needs to make it's voice heard here and to do that they need to pull back donations not just to Feinstein but to the Democratic Party until this disaster is withdrawn
Re: Intelligence Committee Leaders Release Discussion Draft of Encryption Bill
#56> The bill establishes that: No one is above the law. Yes - except diplomats, journalists, doctors, as well as conversations between people in person are all "warrant-proof", and therefore "above the law" as Feinstein calls it. As Zdziarski also says in his post below [1], the 4th amendment doesn't grant the U.S. government anything. It tries to restrict the U.S. government from overreach. It says only upon probable…
Don't forget the politicians. Remember, we're all equal, just some of us are more equal than others.
Re: Intelligence Committee Leaders Release Discussion Draft of Encryption Bill
#57What Silicon Valley needs to make it's voice heard here and to do that they need to pull back donations not just to Feinstein but to the Democratic Party until this disaster is withdrawn
At this point I think the two might be one.
Re: Intelligence Committee Leaders Release Discussion Draft of Encryption Bill
#58"Certain communication service providers that distribute licenses for a covered entity’s products and services also must ensure that these products and services are capable of providing information or data in an intelligible format."
I'm having trouble understanding the meaning of that, but is it saying if you provide a means of encrypting customers data you must be able to access it unencrypted?
Re: Intelligence Committee Leaders Release Discussion Draft of Encryption Bill
#59This bill is a joke, right? Right? Anyone?
This would ironically only jeopardize the safety of law-abiding Americans and lawful American interests. It would be utterly useless for anything else, including terrorism, espionage, criminality and foreign interests.
Re: Intelligence Committee Leaders Release Discussion Draft of Encryption Bill
#60This is hilariously absurd.
So let's say Microsoft provides me with a computer.
I go make some cool encryption program on the computer. Now I can use the computer to encrypt data.
One court order later and Microsoft is now required to decrypt the data I encrypted using their computer.
All Microsoft did was provide a programmable computer. Now they must do the impossible. This bill is ungodly horrible.