An even worse anti-encryption bill than EARN IT • Hacker News Board

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

#211

Post by mindslight » Thu, Jun 25, 2020, 2:45 PM UTC

x86_64Ubuntu wrote: post #169

schaefer wrote: post #102

I've read the bill of rights. i have a right to be secure in my papers and affects. okay, this bill emphasizes that police need a warrant, but glosses over the bit about actual security . administrative controls aren't security. That's why we haven't outlawed locks on the front door...

Secure in your papers and affects means that they can't just go rifling through them. But if I have a bag in my car, and cops want to search it for drugs or weapons, then that's okay. So we've passed the point of the 4th having any legitimate meaning.

Most of the rights spelled out in the Bill of Rights have been effectively nullified. At this point they're better seen as test cases for when we need a revolution, rather than functional law.

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

#212

Post by tharne » Thu, Jun 25, 2020, 2:50 PM UTC

api wrote: post #163

alkonaut wrote: post #117

> (R-SC)...(R-AR)...(R-TN) It's funny how you can read just that and know that the bill is going to be absurdly bad. Not even just bad in the philosophical/political sense but actually just bad as in not understanding the problem space, or not even formulated clearly or coherently.

Nancy Pelosi backed EARN-IT, a bill that's just a more passive aggressive way to try to get the same camel into the same tent.

Agreed. In most cases the main difference between Republicans and Democrats is that the Democrats are much better at hiding their motives or wrapping them in some sort of socially acceptable argument.

I same ways, I prefer the Republican approach because they're more honest about how they want to screw you so it's easier argue and fight back against.

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

#213

Post by lowdose » Thu, Jun 25, 2020, 2:51 PM UTC

javajosh wrote: post #206

I was under the impression that a certain GOP Presidential candidate served the same purpose, and that did not turn out well.

Could you tell me more about that?

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

#214

Post by L_226 » Thu, Jun 25, 2020, 2:51 PM UTC

This seems quite similar to the Australian Assistance and Access Bill [0], which also compels companies to implement new solutions that enable decryption services. This bill also makes it illegal for a compelled person to communicate this order, even to their own company.

Seems like the old trope of Australia being the squishy testbed for shitty US laws is true after all.

[0] - https://www.homeaffairs.gov.au/help-and-support/how-to-engag...

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

#215

Post by sailfast » Thu, Jun 25, 2020, 2:57 PM UTC

LanceH wrote: post #197

sailfast wrote: post #160

Crypto is classified as an armament for export control. I’m keeping mine under the second amendment, since the folks who wrote this bill seem to care about that one. As an aside: does that mean US DoD will get a back door as well? As a secure provider with over 1M users that required encryption at rest and in transit I think they should be the first to give up the keys to law enforcement.

Congress should be the first to lose the things they vote to restrict. They should lose it for at least a year before a bill is allowed to pass by simple majority.

Yeah the TL;DR: on this is “Bill Barr (or any AG) could read all of your emails without a warrant if you vote for this.”

I know they would legally require a warrant to read them, maybe, but he’d have the access without it. Not a fun thought to go back to Hoover-style DoJ practices.

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

#216

Post by noworriesnate » Thu, Jun 25, 2020, 3:05 PM UTC

_tw9j wrote: post #91

desmondw wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think ironically a bill like this passing would lead to more decentralization of services -- making their goals of monitoring information even harder.

They don't want to track people who will use those decentralized services. Simple as that. They want control over majority. Nothing else. Any legal business will be required to do what law requires them and it will affect every citizen. I have no hope given the stupidity of my country to do something against acts like [1] personal data protection law or the decryption act. US going towards that road only means it's e…

Maybe the way this plays out is it becomes very difficult for companies to innovate in communications, so open source peer-to-peer tech will end up dominating.

Of course then they'll probably legally attack the open source model.

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

#217

Post by flyGuyOnTheSly » Thu, Jun 25, 2020, 3:07 PM UTC

pensatoio wrote: post #17

These bills terrify me. A lot of stuff happens in politics that’s frustrating, and much of it doesn’t catch my attention. There’s something about the pure ignorance that goes into breaking encryption that I can’t comprehend. I can understand when bills come through and the extreme differences in opinion are the result of different interpretations of facts and truth, but when it comes to encryption, there is no safe p…

r/pcm?

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

#218

Post by hedora » Thu, Jun 25, 2020, 3:08 PM UTC

api wrote: post #163

alkonaut wrote: post #117

> (R-SC)...(R-AR)...(R-TN) It's funny how you can read just that and know that the bill is going to be absurdly bad. Not even just bad in the philosophical/political sense but actually just bad as in not understanding the problem space, or not even formulated clearly or coherently.

Nancy Pelosi backed EARN-IT, a bill that's just a more passive aggressive way to try to get the same camel into the same tent.

Feinstein (D-CA) co-introduced EARN IT. She might be up for re-election one more time before she retires.

She votes according to Trump’s recommendations more than any other democrat, and more than many republicans.

Her history of supporting right wing causes and overt corruption spans many decades.

As a California Democrat, her position has been unassailable most of her career. I suspect getting rid of her was a motivation for open primaries.

Californians, please stop voting for her!

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

#219

Post by _jal » Thu, Jun 25, 2020, 3:09 PM UTC

redis_mlc wrote: post #112

p_l wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's what concentration camp is for. To concentrate and control. There were separate death camps (sometimes combined) that involved direct train-to-killing-field pipelines, and most concentration camps involved work in horrible conditions, but that's because of further goals above relocation.

Not in the US.

Is the point that the murder happened in a nicer climate?

This is the same rhetorical slight-of-hand people use to ignore Guantanamo. One tends to learn more about the speaker than the topic.

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

#220

Post by throwaway0a5e » Thu, Jun 25, 2020, 3:10 PM UTC

Intermernet wrote: post #205

throwaway0a5e wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Toss enough coins and you'll get a good streak of heads going. There's plenty of D's who just love to come up with bills that make citizens more vulnerable to the government.

Sorry to say, but even in Australia the combination of SC, AR, TN leaves me worrying. There's a lot of dark history associated with those states that the world has known about for years. That's without taking the "R" into account. Sometimes I think the USA should have it's own history A/B compared against it's own history as recorded by the rest of the world. Not saying it's Tiananmen level yet, but it seems some peo…

The northeast states are built on a legacy of making life hard for anyone who didn't hail from the right country or worship in just the right way. The west coast treated Asians like crap. The plains states had to kick the natives out and that wasn't pretty.

It's harder to fit that crap into something short and sweet enough for history textbooks so you don't hear about it whereas simple skin tone based discrimination in the south is easy to make a bullet point out of so everyone knows about it.