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

161–170 of 275 posts

Re: Intelligence Committee Leaders Release Discussion Draft of Encryption Bill

#161

Post by tptacek »

gruez wrote: post #152
tptacek wrote: post #113

I'm getting pretty deep into bets on Twitter AGAINST this bill having a chance of passing. My logic is simple: this bill outlaws all sorts of things huge corporations use to protect their networks. No big company I've ever done security work for has ever been OK with crypto keys being escrowed by vendors; in fact, we were often instructed to look for exactly those kinds of features as disqualifiers for products. I do…

I wouldn't count on that. They could go with a licensing system where you need to pay big bucks to use crypto without escrow. This scheme, of course would be beneficial for incumbents, because it raises the barrier for entry and pushes out the smaller players who can't afford such costs.

Sure, but that's not this law.

Re: Intelligence Committee Leaders Release Discussion Draft of Encryption Bill

#162

Post by Kenji »

p01926 wrote: post #78

They're really hitting the "nobody should be above the law" talking point hard. How fortunate for us — it sounds good but doesn't survive even casual scrutiny. Crypto might interfere with investigations, but that is very different from being above the law. There are huge numbers of cases where some perp used encryption and was still bought to justice. The best analogy I can think of is the document shredder. As a soc…

Banning the shredders is not a solution, you're right. The correct thing to do would be to legally require every shredder producer to include a little scanner right above the blades. This scanner would then take a copy and wirelessly send it back to a server, where it gets stored for 3 months. If there is no internet connection, the shredder must refuse to work. Living the dream!

Re: Intelligence Committee Leaders Release Discussion Draft of Encryption Bill

#163

Post by studentrob »

mangeletti wrote: post #143
studentrob wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

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

It doesn't. You were saying some government officials are saying one thing to the public while knowing another to be true:

>> 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.

That implies some sort of secret plot that would harm the integrity of our government and country.

> 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.

I agree entirely.

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

Nobody said this. Claiming that there is a concerted effort by officials to lie, however, is accusing them of conspiracy.

This vibe of distrust hurts the ability of technologists to come together and be as effective as they're capable of being within government. Ultimately, society and its elected government is formed around trust. You have to believe that most of the people who enter into elected positions did so with the aim of improving our society before you can be effective within it yourself.

Re: Intelligence Committee Leaders Release Discussion Draft of Encryption Bill

#164

Post by spdustin »

ewindisch wrote: post #99
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.

This is not true. The bill would only apply to encryption mechanisms provided by Microsoft or a third-party application installed by Microsoft as part of the operating system. 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…

It covers anything that's been licensed into the software, which would include encryption libraries. It covers hard drive manufacturers (provides a product or method of to facilitate a communication or the processing or storage of data).

Communication, by their definition btw, includes electronic and ORAL communication. As others have mentioned, it literally covers whispering if someone or something amplifies or transmits your whisper thus facilitating a communication.

Re: Intelligence Committee Leaders Release Discussion Draft of Encryption Bill

#166

Post by spdustin »

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…

It says, in plain language, "we can't tell you which lock to use, just that you must have the master key in case we need it."

Re: Intelligence Committee Leaders Release Discussion Draft of Encryption Bill

#167

Post by Confusion »

tzaman wrote: post #165

A not so rhetorical question: If a bill like this passes, would it make sense for the privacy-aware companies to move completely overseas (like, to UK) where these laws to not apply?

It would make sense for any company to move completely overseas.

Re: Intelligence Committee Leaders Release Discussion Draft of Encryption Bill

#168

Post by rwhitman »

How is it that lobbies from oil, guns, banks, telecom have historically been so powerful in passing legislation through Washington, yet the software industry is still so completely limp at protecting it's political interests?

I feel like politicians see tech as an easy target to walk all over to rally the technophobe base, and with good reason - there's really no consequences for doing so.

Why is a company like Apple, at time when it has a historic stockpile of cash, trying to duke out political battles by writing open letters to the press and appealing for public support to uphold basic security practices when other industries manage to bend political will in their favor to do truly greedy things at the public's expense on a regular basis?

Re: Intelligence Committee Leaders Release Discussion Draft of Encryption Bill

#169

Post by abfan1127 »

loup-vaillant wrote: post #155
abfan1127 wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

except for all of these demonstrable ways: http://www.amazon.com/More-Guns-Less-Crime-Understanding/dp/...

(Dunno what's in the book) I hear hand guns in particular are quite accident prone. Even if there's less crime , we might still have more deaths .

I'd check your sources. Hand Guns are no more accident prone than long guns.

Re: Intelligence Committee Leaders Release Discussion Draft of Encryption Bill

#170

Post by kabdib »

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.

The AWB was really about banning guns that looked bad. Feinstein and staffers went through picture books and made lists of guns that looked evil.

During the AWB you could buy firearms functionally identical to banned ones, the only difference being cosmetics.

Post reply on HN