91–100 of 275 posts
Donate to the EFF: https://supporters.eff.org/donate/button
Call your Reps: http://TryVoices.com
Petition the President: https://savecrypto.org/
That is the essence of the bill in my opinion and nothing else.
Security has always been the first resort of tinpots and despots for self seeking behavior. Only those ignorant of history or too distracted with material gain and hubris will fall for it. There always has to be a balance because ultimately everyone is safe in a cage. But that's not what we mean by free democratic societies.
Spying on everyone gives some individuals a sense of power and the logical response to that must be to prosecute them in open courts so their regressive mindsets can be exposed for the sickness they perpetuate. Privacy is much more important and valuable than making day to day law enforcement and governance easier.
Now back to the real world if there was any serious interest in dealing with terrorism Saudi Arabia would have been tackled 30 years ago rather than let them fund and spread Wahhabi ideology globally and the latest round of terror. Yet even today they are the USA and UK's closest allies in the middle east while Iraq, Libya, Syria and Iran who have nothing to do with global terror campaigns are casually destroyed with millions dead and millions in disarray making a complete mockery of the world we live in and the humanity we claim for ourselves.
There is no legitimate argument for a surveillance society other than coming from ignorance of history or narrow self interest. It's high time this country makes an example of those emboldened enough to advocate it and reiterate its commitment to its fundamental values.
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
I don't think our elected officials are bumbling idiots. But they aren't informed about everything either. It's impossible to be an expert across all fields.
As technologists, we think this issue is so straightforward that you must either be evil or a complete idiot if you support this law.
We'd do well to take a step back and observe our thought process. We often think things about computers are simple which others don't understand. That is why we get paid.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When encryption is outlawed, only outlaws will have encryption.
When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.
We can't trust the Government to properly issue court orders anymore, so it would be irresponsible for the People to give them any more power than they've abused already.
> "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.
This 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.
Interestingly, this bill covers vendors and presumably US persons that "provide a product or method". You'll still be able to legally use foreign-developed tools. The US would have grounds to ask those foreign agents to decrypt data, but would have limited means of enforcement.
Instead of complaining into the echo chamber of comments, here are some things you can do to fight back: Donate to the EFF: https://supporters.eff.org/donate/button Call your Reps: http://TryVoices.com Petition the President: https://savecrypto.org/
Comment all you want on HN or whatever forums you like, but they're basically echo chambers, and nothing really matters unless you make yourself heard to the politicians.
[edit: I just called. It'll take you like two minutes]
[edit: I made the phone calls in front of my 11-year-old son, who was eating breakfast, explaining who I was calling and why. He totally gets it. I'm not sure why a certain set of senators do not get it.]