Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

An even worse anti-encryption bill than EARN IT

cyberlaw.stanford.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 367 posts

Re: An even worse anti-encryption bill than EARN IT

#181

Post by [deleted] »

mratsim wrote: post #111
RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #2

This bill will be sold to the right as helping fight against foreign terrorists living in the US. It will be sold to the left as helping against the alt-right organizing and spreading hate. And it will be sold to everyone as helping stop child exploitation. In addition, there is already a lot going on in the country to keep the average person from focusing on this issue. It seems like allowing the government to spy o…

The 4 horsemen of the infocalypse: - terrorists, - drug dealers, - pedophiles, - organized crime. Quoting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_of_the_Infocalyp... Have a target "thing" you wish to stop, yet lack any moral, or practical reasons for doing so? 1. Pick a fear common to lots of people, something that will evoke a gut reaction: terrorists, pedophiles, serial killers. 2. Scream loudly to the media th…

[deleted]

Re: An even worse anti-encryption bill than EARN IT

#182

Post by wizzwizz4 »

Fradow wrote: post #47

Being in the EU, I really wonder how this is going to play out if this bill comes to pass. It's pretty clear this bill is incompatible with the GDPR, which specifically mandates using state of the art encryption when appropriate (and a backdoored encryption is certainly NOT state of the art). The 2 laws would be fundamentally incompatible, which means we would probably see different services based on geolocation from…

We're going to have the "international edition", with 256-bit encryption, and the "US edition" with 40-bit encryption. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/40-bit_encryption

Re: An even worse anti-encryption bill than EARN IT

#183

Post by JumpCrisscross »

monocasa wrote: post #164
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> using the term "moral high ground" is not helpful for a number of reasons The U.S. had a global nuclear monopoly for several years. It didn’t abuse it. That’s a hell of a high ground.

The US is the only country to have used nuclear bombs in anger, and that was during it's nuclear monopoly.

> used nuclear bombs in anger

Using a new weapon to end an existing war is one thing. Using a new weapon to start new wars is another. That delineation is independent of one's judgement of the weapon per se. They're both bad. But one is worse than the other.

The U.S. had the opportunity to go on a mission of global military conquest. There was military support for nuclear war with Russia and China. The United States didn't do that, and I think that's a unique and admirable trait.

Re: An even worse anti-encryption bill than EARN IT

#184

Post by catalogia »

0134340 wrote: post #146
redis_mlc wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> we had concentration camps for Japanese people during World War II I study WW2, and it's important to be factual. The correct term is internment camps. Japanese-Americans usually lost their property, but the purpose was to locate them in central locations, not to re-educate or liquidate them, as our enemies did to the Allies. For that time in history, it could be argued that the decision made sense. Japanese subs d…

>For that time in history, it could be argued that the decision made sense. Japanese subs did shell the US mainland, and Japanese-Americans in Hawaii did help a Japanese aircrew try to escape after Pearl Harbor. Japan planned to return to Hawaii after Midway to occupy Hawaii. It could also be argued that it made sense to do the same for Germans since we had a minority of Germans siding with Hitler and even holding Na…

There were American companies inclined towards blacklisting German Americans at least. FDR made it illegal for them to do that with Executive Order 8802, probably because German Americans were such a large portion of the population that blacklisting them (let alone interning them) would have threatened the war effort.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_8802

Note that in Hawaii, Japanese-Americans were a significant portion of the local population, about one-third. Of the 150k+ Japanese-Americans living in Hawaii, only 1,200 to 1,800, or about 1%, were interned. On the mainland US where they were a smaller portion of the population, far more Japanese Americans were interned. This discrepancy probably comes down to a matter of practicality again; one third of the population is just too many to intern.

Re: An even worse anti-encryption bill than EARN IT

#186

Post by cs702 »

bitxbitxbitcoin wrote: post #179
lunchbreak wrote: post #174

A Twitter thread [1] from Matthew Green in this bill. Essentially he says that this bill is a dead on arrival bill which is designed to make EARN IT look like a fair compromise. And we better not fall for it [1] https://twitter.com/matthew_d_green/status/12759760840231198...

We (HNers) might not fall for it but the proven technologically illiterate Representatives and their staff just might. This is why citizen's lobbying is so important. If the lawmakers are willfully ignorant - or in this case willfully arrogant about attacking encryption - the only thing that will get them to vote the right way is to hear from enough real constituents that the lawmakers feel like their reelection will…

I agree with lunchbreak's comment that this new bill seems "engineered" to make EARN IT look like a reasonable compromise.

FYI, there's a long history of politicians attempting to regulate mathematical truths they don't understand. My favorite example is probably the infamous Indiana Pi Bill, via which local politicians wanted to regulate the value of Pi to be exactly 3.2, according a "proof" published by some crank. The politicians were even hoping they could get people outside Indiana to pay a royalty for the "proof." No, I'm not making this up:

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Indiana_Pi_Bill

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_Pi_Bill

Re: An even worse anti-encryption bill than EARN IT

#187

Post by wizzwizz4 »

mratsim wrote: post #111
RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #2

This bill will be sold to the right as helping fight against foreign terrorists living in the US. It will be sold to the left as helping against the alt-right organizing and spreading hate. And it will be sold to everyone as helping stop child exploitation. In addition, there is already a lot going on in the country to keep the average person from focusing on this issue. It seems like allowing the government to spy o…

The 4 horsemen of the infocalypse: - terrorists, - drug dealers, - pedophiles, - organized crime. Quoting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_of_the_Infocalyp... Have a target "thing" you wish to stop, yet lack any moral, or practical reasons for doing so? 1. Pick a fear common to lots of people, something that will evoke a gut reaction: terrorists, pedophiles, serial killers. 2. Scream loudly to the media th…

I've just realised that they don't just do this with tech stuff. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boys_Beware

Re: An even worse anti-encryption bill than EARN IT

#188

Post by monocasa »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #183
monocasa wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US is the only country to have used nuclear bombs in anger, and that was during it's nuclear monopoly.

> used nuclear bombs in anger Using a new weapon to end an existing war is one thing. Using a new weapon to start new wars is another. That delineation is independent of one's judgement of the weapon per se . They're both bad. But one is worse than the other. The U.S. had the opportunity to go on a mission of global military conquest. There was military support for nuclear war with Russia and China. The United States…

Would you apply the same reasoning to any other country that used nukes to "end an existing war"?

Re: An even worse anti-encryption bill than EARN IT

#189

Post by ragnese »

yingw787 wrote: post #170
CivBase wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This might be an unpopular opinion, but I don't think we should encourage people to vote as much as we do. Voting is an opportunity to make your voice heard. If you have nothing to say about the issues facing a particular office, don't vote. I do not vote for candidates who I am not informed about, but many people do. Those uninformed votes just drown out the voice of the informed voters and reinforce the party-line…

Have you tried absentee voting? It's honestly pretty great. I spend maybe three hours at my computer googling the people I don't know, then send it back. Not sure if it makes a difference in the end but it's cool to know who's claiming they represent you.

I mean, I basically do the same with the sample ballot that gets mailed to me.
Post reply on HN