61–70 of 275 posts
> "Today, terrorists and criminals are increasingly using encryption to foil law enforcement efforts, even in the face of a court order." How can you utter that sentence and simultaneously not understand why your bill is effectively worthless for its stated purpose?
When encryption is outlawed, only outlaws will have encryption.
Not to say that I'd approve this farce.
Feinstein is just the worst. She is the equivalent of Mitch McConnell for the Democrats. She fully understands exactly what she's proposing and she's the biggest hypocrite for it.
I don't know enough about California politics, how is it that Feinstein is able to be a proponent of these crazy ideas and somehow get elected in the home state of Silicon Valley and many of the companies who will be ruined by these proposals?
She also has access to oodles of money from her husband (TPG Capital).
She's not opposed to being a hippocrite. She rails against guns but has a concealed gun permit. Her secret service detail carries automatic weapons and that's OK with her. It's not OK with most of her neighbors, but again, apathetic voters.
Does this actually expand current law? The government already has the ability to subpoena customer data, including encryption keys. > The government cannot require or prohibit any specific design or operating system for any covered entity to use in complying with a court order. This seems to specifically exclude one of the main concerns of the whole Apple/FBI thing. I also don't see anything explicitly requiring back…
Of course they're trying to change something. But, the bill contradicts itself. It was written by people who don't understand technology.
It's an attempt by the authors to outline goals without stating how to achieve those goals.
They would be hard pressed to find a technologist who would support it.
"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?
Another brick in the wall. What are we going to do a out it? Maybe Wikipedia or Google will deface their own websites, and the bill will die only to resurrect shortly after. A better solution would be for the millions of tech workers to unite and vote GOP just to send a message that we don't automatically vote for anyone or any party. If California's vote is locked for a certain party, then it is taken for granted.
Basically, hackers just offer plausible deniability as a service, ransom evidence that you weren't the party sending the data, setup human targets, etc.
To submit a bill like this shows a complete disregard for how it will function in the wild.
> "Today, terrorists and criminals are increasingly using encryption to foil law enforcement efforts, even in the face of a court order." How can you utter that sentence and simultaneously not understand why your bill is effectively worthless for its stated purpose?
Just look at gun control arguments to see why people think outlawing activity will stop criminals.
This is more akin to knife control.
The 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…