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

101–110 of 275 posts

Re: Intelligence Committee Leaders Release Discussion Draft of Encryption Bill

#101

Post by privong »

Aelinsaar wrote: post #86
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

> especially as it comes from the same people who think that government interfering with their firearms is the end of society.

Senator Feinstein, who co-released this draft bill, is also the senator who introduced the assault weapons ban which was law from 1994 to 2004.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dianne_Feinstein#Political_pos...

On the opposite side of things, Senator Paul opposes gun control but supports strong encryption.

https://www.paul.senate.gov/about-rand/issues/second-amendme...

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/03/16/rand-paul-sup...

Re: Intelligence Committee Leaders Release Discussion Draft of Encryption Bill

#102

Post by modscensor11 »

Just a reminder that trying to discuss these matters on HN is a bad idea as the moderators routinely bury any anti government sentiments and articles, ban accounts and IPs which are critical of the government and allow government sock puppets to control the conversation.

Then mods only defense is to say trust them and none of this is true, but ample evidence exists to the contrary.

American government is corrupt and HN Moderation policy is to abide and abet that corruption.

Re: Intelligence Committee Leaders Release Discussion Draft of Encryption Bill

#103

Post by mangeletti »

studentrob wrote: post #95
mangeletti wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Okay, agree to disagree. 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…

We love to think these people are much like our clients who don't know the difference between a popup window and a Python program. These people are informed by groups like the DIA, CIA, NSA, and every other TLA, with a wealth of information on these issues.

Re: Intelligence Committee Leaders Release Discussion Draft of Encryption Bill

#104

Post by ewindisch »

What this does and doesn't do:

This bill effectively makes it illegal for US companies and persons to build or use secure enclaves / TPMs and to publish cryptosystems without either including backdoors or retaining and storing keys. It also implies that companies would need to store keys indefinitely, otherwise they would not be able to decrypt data, as no time limitations are set on the capability of accessing data.

This would not make SSH or TLS illegal or require users to hand over keys. It could mean that if a US person or corporation contributed to an SSH or TLS library, they could be expected to provide a backdoor mechanism to the government. (EDIT: would not require to hand over keys enmass, or in any way above and beyond current statutes)

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.

Re: Intelligence Committee Leaders Release Discussion Draft of Encryption Bill

#105

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

Re: Intelligence Committee Leaders Release Discussion Draft of Encryption Bill

#106

Post by thwarted »

studentrob wrote: post #95
mangeletti wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Okay, agree to disagree. 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…

As technologists, we think this issue is so straightforward that you must either be evil or a complete idiot if you support this law

I don't think it is either. More likely it is the "something must be done, this is something" kind of thinking. You don't need to be absolutely evil or absolutely idiotic to subscribe to this philosophy.

The problem is that we end debating the right side of that claim (because that's what the uniformed masses and legislators focus on), what the something should be, rather than trying to convince people that the left side, the premise, is unfounded.

Re: Intelligence Committee Leaders Release Discussion Draft of Encryption Bill

#108

Post by mnglkhn2 »

noobie wrote: post #60

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.

What if the follow-on bill will require Microsoft and the rest NOT to provide/allow you with programmable computers?

Or maybe MS decides it is untenable for them to reverse engineer whatever the end user is doing, so it makes business sense to them to simply build tablets good only for consuming content and not producing stuff?!

Re: Intelligence Committee Leaders Release Discussion Draft of Encryption Bill

#109

Post by justinlardinois »

DanielBMarkham wrote: post #88
justinlardinois wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 work…

> 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.

Well, not necessarily. California abolished partisan primaries a few years ago. The way it works now is that all candidates for a position run in the same primary, and the top two advance to the general election, regardless of affiliation.

I'm not sure if there have been any races so far that involved two Democrats (it's only been two or so election cycles since the change) but the 2016 Senate race seems likely to be between two Democrats.

Of course there's still the problem of finding a Democrat with enough clout and balls to challenge Feinstein in 2018.

Re: Intelligence Committee Leaders Release Discussion Draft of Encryption Bill

#110

Post by eternalban »

studentrob wrote: post #95
mangeletti wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Okay, agree to disagree. 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…

The idea behind keeping secrets and whispering in someone's ear is not esoterica.

The fundamental issue here is that mutual trust between US government and the American people has been significantly eroded. Until this issue is addressed and trust is restored, all other discussions (however informed) are ultimately idle chatter.

Post reply on HN