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

181–190 of 275 posts

Re: Intelligence Committee Leaders Release Discussion Draft of Encryption Bill

#181

Post by Frondo »

mc32 wrote: post #151
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…

While it's convenient to paint this as "the government," many people, the ones who elect most officials, are also of the opinion that if authorized (by some manner) that encrypted data should be made available in plaintext. For the common people this comes in the form "I believe my dead relative's phone has information which will expose their killer, I want the carrier or manufacturer to make that data available, it'…

Yes, exactly, it's the same thinking that lets the government search people's houses when authorized, or detail and question them when authorized.

We already have this concept of "the government can go through your stuff" in the form of search warrants. It's not a leap at all to apply that to encryption, too, even if some specific law gets it wrong at first.

I'm sure if pocket enigma machines were around when these laws were first being put to parchment, there'd have been something in there about encryption from the start.

Re: Intelligence Committee Leaders Release Discussion Draft of Encryption Bill

#182

Post by LinuxBender »

Apologies, this will be an unpopular opinion.

If encryption is deemed illegal for whatever reason, then perhaps start creating new things that legally don't fall under the category of encryption, but accomplish the same thing.

There are countless creative, imaginative and intelligent people on this site. PR teams, please let folks brainstorm first.

Re: Intelligence Committee Leaders Release Discussion Draft of Encryption Bill

#183

Post by rayiner »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #177
rayiner wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Government is trying to make it illegal for one person to keep secrets and whisper them into another's ear. That is already the case. If you whisper a secret into my ear, the government can subpoena me and force me to tell a court what you said. They can force you to tell a court what you said so long as it's not incriminating to you, and even then they can do it if they give you immunity. We can debate about what…

With a subpoena or warrant, yes. But not pervasively. And while we're at it, why is the existing state of affairs not good enough? Why the attempts to subvert the message pipe? After all, the govt can still compel people to talk, and its people receiving those secret messages. The reason is, to my cynical mind, that they're interested to avoiding the work of warrants etc. They'd like to sidestep privacy entirely, and…

You make a good point, which is that if companies have to weaken their encryption in order to be able to comply with this law, that opens up the possibility for easier surveillance without a warrant. I think that's a huge concern, because in my opinion the 4th amendment only provides limited protections to bits travelling over third-party pipes on the Internet, so effective end-to-end encryption is essential for privacy.

That being said, the ostensible purpose of this bill is to govern what happens in response to a valid court order.

Re: Intelligence Committee Leaders Release Discussion Draft of Encryption Bill

#184

Post by koryteg »

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…

I think the american voter has started to lose it's way, or at least feel hopeless to change what is put in place. but I dont care if the nominee is a republican or democrat, we need to pass laws that keep the government at bay and stop letting them push us around. the media and politics pit us, the people, against each other in order to swayed us and get laws passed that control us. I am tired of it. most people on one side of an issue or another could come together and be friends. but the media pushes hate and fear till both sides are so defensive they think the other is the enemy instead of the guy saying "he said she said" and throwing the knife in the middle.

Re: Intelligence Committee Leaders Release Discussion Draft of Encryption Bill

#185

Post by mangeletti »

studentrob wrote: post #163
mangeletti wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> saying one thing to the public while knowing another to be true

Yes. This is called lying. It doesn't require a "massive conspiracy".

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

It implies nothing of the sort. It implies that Government is losing the leverage that gives it the power to levy taxes beyond what is acceptable by the population, and so Government's present endeavors (partly driven by outside commercial pressure - e.g., military contractors) are overshadowing its primary purpose, which is to protect us and our rights.

Re: Intelligence Committee Leaders Release Discussion Draft of Encryption Bill

#186

Post by aethertap »

rayiner wrote: post #174
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…

> Government is trying to make it illegal for one person to keep secrets and whisper them into another's ear. That is already the case. If you whisper a secret into my ear, the government can subpoena me and force me to tell a court what you said. They can force you to tell a court what you said so long as it's not incriminating to you, and even then they can do it if they give you immunity. We can debate about what…

> That is already the case. If you whisper a secret into my ear, the government can subpoena me and force me to tell a court what you said. They can force you to tell a court what you said so long as it's not incriminating to you, and even then they can do it if they give you immunity.

This is true, but they can't compel me to inform on someone who had a whispered conversation near me that I couldn't hear. To me, the current bill is more like the latter scenario.

If I invented a communication device consisting of two cans and a connecting string, then sold it as a way for neighbor kids to talk privately to each other, they could not compel me to divulge the contents of their conversations because I wouldn't have access, even though I built the canmunicator. I think that in this case, what they're doing is more like mandating that I have a way to let them monitor all string vibrations.

If they want to subpoena information, they can demand that one of the parties actually involved in the communication surrender their keys. If they refuse, then it seems like basically the same situation as when both parties to a whispered conversation refuse to talk about it.

Re: Intelligence Committee Leaders Release Discussion Draft of Encryption Bill

#187

Post by Retric »

abfan1127 wrote: post #116
chx wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When guns are outlawed, only lawmen and outlaws will have guns. Good. That's the state of affairs in every developed country except one and it's demonstrably better in every way.

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

That sounds like a totally unbiased source!

PS: I have actually been paid to look into crime statistics. Guns are bad, really really bad. But, you can twist statistics to say the sky is orange if you want to.

Re: Intelligence Committee Leaders Release Discussion Draft of Encryption Bill

#188

Post by ewindisch »

spdustin wrote: post #160
ewindisch wrote: post #104

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.…

Respectfully, I disagree WRT SSH/TLS Section 2 (4) spells it out: communication service and software providers. That's the maker of every app on your phone, the phone manufacturer, your phone company, emails provider, retailer (they're communicating your data to their data warehouses). The summary clearly says "software manufacturers" (aside: manufacture software? facepalm ), "providers of wire...electronic...[or] re…

It would cover your use of SSH/TLS for providing a service, but they can already subpoena those keys under existing law, so it's of limited relevance in a conversation about what this bill introduces.

What changes here is that if you deployed SSH/TLS using a HSM (Hardware security module), you'd need to be prepared to provide a plaintext stream upon a court order. Obviously, the alternative is to choose the non-HSM route which is, and has always been, vulnerable to subpoena.

I would say the HSM example is likely the government's understanding of the law as it exists today anyway. This is a matter of codifying and clarifying that position.

All of the above-such systems are such where the vendor or operator already controls the means and mechanisms for encryption and decryption. These are already vulnerable to subpoena.

The serious changes in this bill are around building systems where only the end-user can control access to their data.

Re: Intelligence Committee Leaders Release Discussion Draft of Encryption Bill

#189

Post by Retric »

abfan1127 wrote: post #169
loup-vaillant wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(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.

Not if you adjust for usage. On average people use Long guns more than hand guns.

Re: Intelligence Committee Leaders Release Discussion Draft of Encryption Bill

#190

Post by lasermike026 »

callcallcall wrote: post #91

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/

The EFF is great but we need to figure out a way to kill this thing. Get your checkbooks. We need an apparatus to kill things like this. Think of it as an NRA for crypto.

Richard Burr is up for reelection this year. Remember to send money to his opponents. We might want to look for any other groups that have issues with Burr and send them money too. Perhaps this is how you kill a bill.

https://ballotpedia.org/Richard_Burr

Post reply on HN