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

221–230 of 275 posts

Re: Intelligence Committee Leaders Release Discussion Draft of Encryption Bill

#221

Post by kyleblarson »

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.

"Assault weapon" is a completely made up term to make semi automatic weapons sound more scary to the uninformed.

Re: Intelligence Committee Leaders Release Discussion Draft of Encryption Bill

#222

Post by ocschwar »

mangeletti wrote: post #103
studentrob wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

These people have access to well informed advice. Doesn't mean they make use of it. Feinstein is just plain stubborn.

Re: Intelligence Committee Leaders Release Discussion Draft of Encryption Bill

#223

Post by nickysielicki »

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

Bullshit. This is coming from John McCain-style neoconservatives and democrats that don't lean liberal on civil liberties.

In my opinion, the only political identity that you might hope would fight back are Tea Partiers, and that's the same group that feels strongly about gun rights. I don't think you could be more wrong.

It will be interesting to see what Cruz does here when inevitably questioned about it. Will he alienate his new neoconservative base on this issue? Will he stick to his Tea Party roots?

Re: Intelligence Committee Leaders Release Discussion Draft of Encryption Bill

#224

Post by lukeschlather »

natch wrote: post #142
studentrob wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 al…

It's substantially worse than that. This law makes all unbreakable locks illegal.

Re: Intelligence Committee Leaders Release Discussion Draft of Encryption Bill

#225

Post by niels_olson »

studentrob wrote: post #81
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…

> 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…

> the law does not stop criminals from hiding their communications.

Better: this law would effectively grant criminals infinitely more protection than law-abiding citizens.

Re: Intelligence Committee Leaders Release Discussion Draft of Encryption Bill

#226

Post by SXX »

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?

No idea about corporations, but for persons UK already have awful law regarding encryption since 2007. They may put you in jail for up to two years for simply not providing decryption keys if there is a court order.

Re: Intelligence Committee Leaders Release Discussion Draft of Encryption Bill

#227

Post by mceachen »

ocschwar wrote: post #94
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…

yet? She was singing this tune 20 years ago.

Sources please. I did a research on her legislation and voting record back then, expecting to find horrible things, and found her work to be thoughtful and helpful to the populous.

Things have dramatically changed since then, unfortunately. It'd be fascinating to uncover what caused this marked phase change.

Re: Intelligence Committee Leaders Release Discussion Draft of Encryption Bill

#228

Post by CoryG89 »

Veratyr wrote: post #191
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…

If it passes, what are the chances of it being struck down as a first amendment violation?

The first amendment does not guarantee the right to privacy. Most Americans would be surprised to know that the Constitution does not guarantee privacy at all.

The closest you get is the 4th amendment which only protects against unreasonable search and seizure (without a warrant).

Some argue that the 3rd amendment implies a right to privacy and was the intent of the amendment, but alas it only protects against being forced to house soldiers.

Disclaimer: IANAL

Re: Intelligence Committee Leaders Release Discussion Draft of Encryption Bill

#229

Post by [deleted] »

Veratyr wrote: post #191
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…

If it passes, what are the chances of it being struck down as a first amendment violation?

[deleted]

Re: Intelligence Committee Leaders Release Discussion Draft of Encryption Bill

#230

Post by andrewmutz »

spdustin wrote: post #166
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."

Interesting, I read it differently. I read it as being internally inconsistent.

From my perspective it says "you need to hand over the plaintext if law enforcement asks for it," which would imply that a master key of some sort needs to exist.

But then it also says that nothing in this act can be construed to require a specific design. But requiring a master key to exist would be requiring a specific design.

The proposed law sounds internally inconsistent to me.

Post reply on HN