House Votes to Renew Surveillance Law, Rejecting New Privacy Limits • Hacker News Board

Re: House Votes to Renew Surveillance Law, Rejecting New Privacy Limits

#51

Post by ballenf » Thu, Jan 11, 2018, 6:03 PM UTC

nimbius wrote: post #37

This has been a can kicked for many a mile. First bush, then obama, and now trump. The undocumented and largely ignored effect of FISA is that it is quietly driving cryptography to unprecedented levels of adoption. OpenPGP is part of Yubikey now, granting the average user HSM level security for their encryption for less than $50. Google has increased their cipherstrength and offers several multifactor solutions as we…

I take no solace in typical cryptography as it does nothing to hide most metadata. Who I talk to, when, how often (and the same for websites visited) is way more sensitive in the collective than the contents of any single one of those interactions.

Signal type apps hide both and are valuable, but without widespread adoption is meaningless to most people.

I'm not against any of the progress you cite, but so long as people can be targeted based on metadata they are at risk. Once targeted, it becomes child's play to bypass the encryption that most people employ, whether through social engineering or side channel attacks (beyond Spectre-type) or governmental requests/threats to cloud providers.

Re: House Votes to Renew Surveillance Law, Rejecting New Privacy Limits

#52

Post by cavanasm » Thu, Jan 11, 2018, 6:03 PM UTC

jonny_eh wrote: post #26

tootie wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

His opposition to this bill is based on nonsense, but it would be wonderfully ironic if he used it as the basis for veto.

He'd never veto anything, he'd have to read the bill to veto it.

You seem to have been downvoted, possibly for how quippy your comment is, but there's some indication that this reasoning isn't far off. Earlier this week Trump made clear during his televised immigration policy meeting that he would sign anything Congress actually sent him, which seems like a very odd position to take when you consider that immigration was Trump's signature campaign issue.

Re: House Votes to Renew Surveillance Law, Rejecting New Privacy Limits

#53

Post by bmelton » Thu, Jan 11, 2018, 6:05 PM UTC

rocmcd wrote: post #45

bgentry wrote: post #41

55 House Democrats, including Pelosi, voted against the USA Rights Act amendment that would have substantially limited the surveillance against US citizens. 65 House Democrats ultimately voted in favor of this bill and giving the Trump admin more unchecked surveillance powers. https://twitter.com/gzornick/status/951501089047764992 http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2018/roll016.xml

Does anyone know if there is a place where representatives put their reasoning behind votes?

Not my representative, bu Justin Amash, an R from Michigan's 3rd District, posts the rationale for why he voted how he voted on most bills on Facebook.

To my knowledge, he's the only one that does it with any degree of regularity.

Re: House Votes to Renew Surveillance Law, Rejecting New Privacy Limits

#54

Post by rektide » Thu, Jan 11, 2018, 6:07 PM UTC

As Wyden[1] points out, Congress has nearly no information on what impact the FISA program has. How many Americans are targeted already? The military refuses to answer Congress. How many emails & other collections are swept up? The military refuses to answer to Congress.

This bill explicitly allows it's use directly against Americans and declares which circumstances the FBI & other agencies need to use warrants and where these agencies will now be permitted warrantless access to FISA collections.

"Abouts" collection has a direct means to being permitted again. Ever use the word Benghazi in an email? Ok, all your communication might be wiretapped from now on. If the FBI ever wants to investigate you for something non terrorism related, something totally unrelated to Benghazi? No problem. Maybe- in some cases- they MIGHT need a warrant.

Just Security had a great writeup[2]. This bill is a travesty, especially given that Congress has again and again asked for some information to inform them about how FISA is being used already, and the military has stonewalled and stonewalled and stonewalled. That congress would radically expand these powers, let them now directly target Americans, and would allow the FBI & others access to this program, after being continually rebuffed, AND would make this program unable to be challenged in court- it's the pinnacle of madness. It's complete dereliction of duty by congress, and one of the saddest moments of cowardice in the US Governments history that we'd stoop so low.

[1] https://www.thecipherbrief.com/column_article/dont-pass-surv...

[2] https://www.justsecurity.org/50801/house-intelligence-commit...

Re: House Votes to Renew Surveillance Law, Rejecting New Privacy Limits

#55

Post by ballenf » Thu, Jan 11, 2018, 6:08 PM UTC

epmaybe wrote: post #8

I had a discussion with my mother regarding surveillance and privacy and how they relate to safety. I feel like she understands that surveillance when used in a nefarious manner can be detrimental to individual freedoms, but is pro surveillance regardless. This is because she believes that the benefits of keeping others safe outweighs the potential for misuse. How can I help her understand why people fight for privac…

Agreed. We need talented sales and marketing people to help re-connect privacy to freedom. You literally cannot have the latter without the former, but that truth has been blurred and mostly lost.

It started with the war on drugs and is now the war on terror.

One big catastrophic terrorist attack perpetrated via computer networks and the internet will be all it takes to wipe out any vestige we have left of privacy and anonymity. Could easily see TOR and the like being outlawed worldwide.

Re: House Votes to Renew Surveillance Law, Rejecting New Privacy Limits

#56

Post by cryptonector » Thu, Jan 11, 2018, 6:10 PM UTC

nimbius wrote: post #37

This has been a can kicked for many a mile. First bush, then obama, and now trump. The undocumented and largely ignored effect of FISA is that it is quietly driving cryptography to unprecedented levels of adoption. OpenPGP is part of Yubikey now, granting the average user HSM level security for their encryption for less than $50. Google has increased their cipherstrength and offers several multifactor solutions as we…

Trump has not signed this yet. It's not even on his desk yet IIRC. And he's tweeted about, implying that he disapproves.

Re: House Votes to Renew Surveillance Law, Rejecting New Privacy Limits

#57

Post by cryptonector » Thu, Jan 11, 2018, 6:11 PM UTC

ballenf wrote: post #51

nimbius wrote: post #37

This has been a can kicked for many a mile. First bush, then obama, and now trump. The undocumented and largely ignored effect of FISA is that it is quietly driving cryptography to unprecedented levels of adoption. OpenPGP is part of Yubikey now, granting the average user HSM level security for their encryption for less than $50. Google has increased their cipherstrength and offers several multifactor solutions as we…

I take no solace in typical cryptography as it does nothing to hide most metadata. Who I talk to, when, how often (and the same for websites visited) is way more sensitive in the collective than the contents of any single one of those interactions. Signal type apps hide both and are valuable, but without widespread adoption is meaningless to most people. I'm not against any of the progress you cite, but so long as pe…

Crypto does nothing to prevent rubber hose attacks. And as you note, it is very difficult to prevent traffic analysis, that being the only thing the government really needs to find what it's looking for anyways.

Re: House Votes to Renew Surveillance Law, Rejecting New Privacy Limits

#58

Post by davidw » Thu, Jan 11, 2018, 6:13 PM UTC

rocmcd wrote: post #45

bgentry wrote: post #41

55 House Democrats, including Pelosi, voted against the USA Rights Act amendment that would have substantially limited the surveillance against US citizens. 65 House Democrats ultimately voted in favor of this bill and giving the Trump admin more unchecked surveillance powers. https://twitter.com/gzornick/status/951501089047764992 http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2018/roll016.xml

Does anyone know if there is a place where representatives put their reasoning behind votes?

You can contact them and ask. They're working for you, after all.

Re: House Votes to Renew Surveillance Law, Rejecting New Privacy Limits

#59

Post by maxerickson » Thu, Jan 11, 2018, 6:13 PM UTC

Something1234 wrote: post #50

rocmcd wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does anyone know if there is a place where representatives put their reasoning behind votes?

If there isn't one yet, there needs to be one. Our government needs to be made more transparent, and we deserve to know their train of thought for these incredible and large decisions.

If you somehow convince them to require it of themselves you'll just get page after page of disingenuous paffle.

Re: House Votes to Renew Surveillance Law, Rejecting New Privacy Limits

#60

Post by cryptonector » Thu, Jan 11, 2018, 6:15 PM UTC

cavanasm wrote: post #52

jonny_eh wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He'd never veto anything, he'd have to read the bill to veto it.

You seem to have been downvoted, possibly for how quippy your comment is, but there's some indication that this reasoning isn't far off. Earlier this week Trump made clear during his televised immigration policy meeting that he would sign anything Congress actually sent him, which seems like a very odd position to take when you consider that immigration was Trump's signature campaign issue.

It's easy to say "I'll sign anything you send me" if you're certain they will be unable to send anything. It is risky, sure, because the unexpected can happen. The next day he also gave a summary of the meeting that was very different from what attendees thought. The meeting was a made-for-TV moment, so you should take it in with lots of salt.