Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Intelligence Committee Leaders Release Discussion Draft of Encryption Bill

feinstein.senate.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 275 posts

Re: Intelligence Committee Leaders Release Discussion Draft of Encryption Bill

#81

Post by studentrob »

mangeletti wrote: post #74

Government is trying to make it illegal for one person to keep secrets and whisper them into another's ear. We can argue all day about how the law doesn't prevent criminals from using technologies (it doesn't, which makes the law idiotic, from a logic perspective), but that's not the important part. The important part is that this group of folks we're calling Government is trying to prevent us from being allowed to h…

> We can argue all day about how the law doesn't prevent criminals from using technologies (it doesn't, which makes the law idiotic, from a logic perspective), but that's not the important part.

We should tell other people that the law does not stop criminals from hiding their communications. Some people don't understand the nature of software or open source, and it can be explained.

> The important part is that this group of folks we're calling Government is trying to prevent us from being allowed to have secrets and whisper to each other.

Personally I think the people who support this kind of law are the same ones who believe they have nothing to hide from the government. So the privacy argument is lost on them. When you point out the law is harmful to their security and impossible to enforce, then there's a chance you'll be able to convince them.

This is a great opportunity for technologists to chat up their friends and family, start campaigns, or perhaps even run for office. This issue is an easy win if you can keep a cool head while explaining the facts.

Re: Intelligence Committee Leaders Release Discussion Draft of Encryption Bill

#82

Post by ipsin »

Any odds-makers want to speculate on the odds of this going all the way?

It seems like this could be an anchoring tactic -- now that we've seen the intelligence and law-enforcement wish-list, we should supposedly be happy with any other "compromise" bill that's not quite as apocalyptic.

Re: Intelligence Committee Leaders Release Discussion Draft of Encryption Bill

#83

Post by zmanian »

zmanian wrote: post #55

What 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

Take whatever money you were planning on spending to support Democrats this election and give it to Planned Parenthood and the EFF until this bill is withdraw

Re: Intelligence Committee Leaders Release Discussion Draft of Encryption Bill

#84

Post by mangeletti »

studentrob wrote: post #81
mangeletti wrote: post #74

Government is trying to make it illegal for one person to keep secrets and whisper them into another's ear. We can argue all day about how the law doesn't prevent criminals from using technologies (it doesn't, which makes the law idiotic, from a logic perspective), but that's not the important part. The important part is that this group of folks we're calling Government is trying to prevent us from being allowed to h…

> We can argue all day about how the law doesn't prevent criminals from using technologies (it doesn't, which makes the law idiotic, from a logic perspective), but that's not the important part. We should tell other people that the law does not stop criminals from hiding their communications. Some people don't understand the nature of software or open source, and it can be explained. > The important part is that this…

> privacy argument is lost on them

The point I'm making is that I don't think it's lost at all. I think these people didn't all get to be in positions of power by being bumbling idiots. They know that they can convince some portion of the masses that they are in danger and need help. And that's all it takes to get a leg up on everyone; a portion of the masses.

Re: Intelligence Committee Leaders Release Discussion Draft of Encryption Bill

#85

Post by anexprogrammer »

tbrake wrote: post #30

> "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?

It's what happens when legislators have precisely no domain knowledge. I used to be surprised at the naiveté and ignorance when politicians spoke on topics I knew a little about. I'm too old to be surprised any more.

Re: Intelligence Committee Leaders Release Discussion Draft of Encryption Bill

#86

Post by Aelinsaar »

mangeletti wrote: post #74

Government is trying to make it illegal for one person to keep secrets and whisper them into another's ear. We can argue all day about how the law doesn't prevent criminals from using technologies (it doesn't, which makes the law idiotic, from a logic perspective), but that's not the important part. The important part is that this group of folks we're calling Government is trying to prevent us from being allowed to h…

You have to love this, especially as it comes from the same people who think that government interfering with their firearms is the end of society. Meanwhile, losing their ability to keep a secret from the government they think they're getting ready to revolt against doesn't faze them.

grips forehead and moans

Re: Intelligence Committee Leaders Release Discussion Draft of Encryption Bill

#88

Post by DanielBMarkham »

justinlardinois wrote: post #37
numbsafari wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

As a Californian, because... * There are a lot of Republican voters in California who are happy to vote for Democrats, so even better if they're more towards the right * I'm not old enough to have voted in too many elections, but her opponent in 2012 was a joke * She doesn't really have an anti-Silicon Valley reputation (yet) * California is more than just Silicon Valley * Likelihood of voting correlates directly wit…

I think you're hitting close to the reason.

California is a conservative state outside of SF and LA, although because of their populations, the state is owned by the Democractic party.

Feinstein is a party machine candidate who can appeal across the aisle to those conservatives. Sure, she'll lose some Democrats, but the base will stick to voting with the party, and enough conservatives will crossover that it all works out.

Note that if SV goes to war over this, and it should, it could change the balance in the state. The problem with this from the SV point of view is that if you sabotage Feinstein, you don't get another Democrat. You get a Republican. And I imagine the Republicans are looking for a little payback if they can ever get the levers of power back.

So what do you do? Do you get rid of Feinstein over this one-issue, idiotic and harmful security state nonsense, then end up with a bunch of folks in power that might hurt you on a bunch of things, or do you grit your teeth and bear it?

Looks like the compromise is to let her posture a bit for the conservatives, then fund the opposition to make sure that nothing she proposes gets through. That's a tricky game to play, though.

Re: Intelligence Committee Leaders Release Discussion Draft of Encryption Bill

#89

Post by studentrob »

coldpie wrote: post #47
studentrob wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. Does anyone know which representatives support this bill? If it's just Feinstein and Burr, they can keep dreaming, but I imagine there are a few more.

It's really disheartening to read or hear almost any discussion about this issue. They're chock-full of broken analogies to meatspace that sound perfectly reasonable if you don't understand the nuances. The instant access, wide platform, and cheap copying that the Internet provides is unlike anything our species has dealt with before, and if you're not really informed on these issues, it's easy to lead yourself into…

> My point being, the anti-encryption side has the support of nearly everyone who isn't informed about encryption and computing, which is a whole lot of people.

That just means there is more of a chance for technologists to take a leading role in this discussion through activism. It's an easy win if you can keep a cool head while explaining the issues.

Re: Intelligence Committee Leaders Release Discussion Draft of Encryption Bill

#90

Post by brbsix »

studentrob wrote: post #68
Lawtonfogle wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just look at gun control arguments to see why people think outlawing activity will stop criminals.

Guns are somewhat difficult to produce. This is more akin to knife control.

No more difficult to produce than many illicit drugs. Potentially much easier even, with the right parts. Besides, there are plenty of other countries you can smuggle arms into the U.S. from given sufficient demand.

Of course the knife analogy is still useful. We all know the futility of outlawing software.

Post reply on HN