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

141–150 of 275 posts

Re: Intelligence Committee Leaders Release Discussion Draft of Encryption Bill

#141

Post by TheLogothete »

anexprogrammer wrote: post #85
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.

It's very ironic that you talk about naiveté.

You think legislators do not understand the subject because of what they said?

You believe what the politicians say?

Re: Intelligence Committee Leaders Release Discussion Draft of Encryption Bill

#142

Post by natch »

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.

Any weapon analogy is bad for our side of the argument, because weapons sound to many people like things that bad people use to do bad things. Yes, I realize that knives are used in kitchens to cut vegetables, but with the way this discussion is rightly framed as a security thing, people are not thinking about kitchens.

I would prefer to see lock analogies. Here's a half baked example: This is like a law requiring all builders of buildings to install locks that can be opened by any person who gets access to a copy of a law enforcement key.

Re: Intelligence Committee Leaders Release Discussion Draft of Encryption Bill

#143

Post by mangeletti »

studentrob wrote: post #112
mangeletti wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Lindsey Graham changed his mind [1]. It isn't a massive conspiracy. I wouldn't say Feinstein is well-informed. Watch some of the hearings where she interacts with other members. It's awkward and clear they don't enjoy working with her. [1] https://youtu.be/uk4hYAwCdhU?t=6m53s

Why does wanting more power have to be a "massive conspiracy"?

It seems like pretty common sense wisdom that being in power usually leads to wanting more power, and also that power often corrupts. One does not need to be a "conspiracy theorist" to come to this conclusion.

The real conspiracy is the apparently concerted effort to call anyone that believes the government is busy grabbing power a "conspiracy theorists".

Re: Intelligence Committee Leaders Release Discussion Draft of Encryption Bill

#144

Post by allemagne »

andrewmutz wrote: post #119

I genuinely don't understand what the bill would do. This section seems to place no restrictions on the design of devices: (b) DESIGN LIMITATIONS.—Nothing in this Act may be construed to authorize any government officer to require or prohibit any specific design or operating system to be adopted by any covered entity. If the bill says the government cannot place restrictions on the design of devices, but the bill say…

That statement of "no restrictions" is meant to mislead a non-technical person to make the bill palatable. The reality of the bill is in the part that requires companies to NOT build a system that they themselves can't break into.

Re: Intelligence Committee Leaders Release Discussion Draft of Encryption Bill

#145

Post by saryant »

spdustin wrote: post #130
NoGravitas wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's really the establishment within both the Democratic and Republican parties that is pushing for this. It's opposed by more left-leaning Democrats and more libertarian-leaning Republicans.

I'm confused here - Democrats are "left-leaning".

Not all of them and not on all issues. There are many statist Democrats in Congress, Feinstein is one of them.

Re: Intelligence Committee Leaders Release Discussion Draft of Encryption Bill

#146

Post by privong »

Ntrails wrote: post #132
privong wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Slight digression, but does that mean owning assault weapons is a ok again in the US? Just curious.

> Slight digression, but does that mean owning assault weapons is a ok again in the US? Just curious.

It depends what is meant by "assault weapon". If you mean fully automatic weapons, then no, but those were essentially banned (with minor exceptions) for private ownership in 1986[0]. Ownership of those had been regulated since 1934[1]. The 1994–2004 "assault weapons" ban covered specific features[2] on guns. Since 2004, purchase of guns with (2 or more of) those features is once again legal. Note that some opposed to the 1994 assault weapons ban claim many of the features are cosmetic, rather than functional.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act#...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban#Cr...

Re: Intelligence Committee Leaders Release Discussion Draft of Encryption Bill

#147

Post by DickingAround »

Ntrails wrote: post #132
privong wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Slight digression, but does that mean owning assault weapons is a ok again in the US? Just curious.

Depending on your definition of 'assault', yet. In the US is was essentially defined by the number of features your rifle was allowed to have, and indeed there is no longer a limit. It's hard (>$20k to buy a used one) to get a fully automatic rifle.

Re: Intelligence Committee Leaders Release Discussion Draft of Encryption Bill

#149

Post by unchocked »

Ntrails wrote: post #132
privong wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Slight digression, but does that mean owning assault weapons is a ok again in the US? Just curious.

Oh yeah, has been since Bush the second let the ban lapse.

Re: Intelligence Committee Leaders Release Discussion Draft of Encryption Bill

#150

Post by justinlardinois »

_asummers wrote: post #36
koenigdavidmj wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

She has a D after her name.

So do many people in California. And that's only relevant in a general election. Why hasn't she gotten a reasonable challenger in the primaries?

It actually doesn't matter at all, as we've done away with partisan primaries:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonpartisan_blanket_primary#Ca...

Post reply on HN