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

241–250 of 367 posts

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

#241

Post by brianlweiner »

banads wrote: post #231
SV_BubbleTime wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He means Trump. As seen in the leaked Podesta emails (Hillary’s campaign manager that was phished and has a password of “Pa$$w0rd” or such), Hillary Co asked their media contacts to put emphasis on Trump. To give him more coverage than the others running. They literally called him their “pied piper” candidate. They were so confident they could beat Trump that they helped prop him up. How Hillary skated by with many p…

Can someone explain why this is being heavily downvoted? Was something they said false?

Probably the ludicrous notion that somehow Hillary Clinton is to blame for electing Donald Trump rather than the millions of people who voted for him despite overwhelming evidence of his lack of fitness for the office.

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

#242

Post by SV_BubbleTime »

banads wrote: post #231
SV_BubbleTime wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He means Trump. As seen in the leaked Podesta emails (Hillary’s campaign manager that was phished and has a password of “Pa$$w0rd” or such), Hillary Co asked their media contacts to put emphasis on Trump. To give him more coverage than the others running. They literally called him their “pied piper” candidate. They were so confident they could beat Trump that they helped prop him up. How Hillary skated by with many p…

Can someone explain why this is being heavily downvoted? Was something they said false?

> Can someone explain why this is being heavily downvoted? Was something they said false? reply

Yea man, I’ve given up caring. Emotions > truth.

A one second search of “hillary pied piper” will lead to the Wikileaks archived emails, tons of discussion from Salon to Fox News to Vox to Breitbart.

The truth isn’t important. Only the narrative. I don’t have an ironic username here, hiding undesirable facts is not a side effect of hyper polarization, this is by design of the vote system. Hide things that make you feel sad, you don’t want others to feel sad, do your duty and make the bad man go away.

It’s why the first guy only eluded to it, you don’t want to risk your internet points! I knew the truth about how Hillary leveraging her media connections to get Trump billions in free coverage would be unpopular here. Maybe I should believe that a few hundred thousand in Russian purchased Facebook ads swayed people but billions in coverage from US media didn’t.

I don’t care. I refuse the chilling effect.

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

#243

Post by hedora »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #37
fulafel wrote: post #20

What are the effects of this, if passed, on the rest of the world using Office 365, Facebook or AWS? It might be impossible to reconcile with some regulation in eg the EU.

I hope (fingers crossed) that the encryption laws will simply not apply to the EU. I mean most US companies operate via an intermediate company hosted in e.g. Ireland or the Netherlands already, so I reckon legally they can disregard these bills. Of course, if the US government starts to offer money for data, they may budge anyways. I'm fairly sure MOST data can freely be shared with the US, it's just government data…

https://www.linklaters.com/en/insights/blogs/digilinks/2019/...

Tl;dr: For most data, the cloud vendor is basically forced to violate either the cloud act or the gpdr. The gpdr has a bunch of fuzzy carve outs for requests involving people in danger or the “public interest”. My guess is that those will be expanded over time to force the data to be handed over, regardless.

If the data isn’t “personal information” (financial records aren’t, for example), GPDR doesn’t apply and the warrant must be served.

I think this means that, because they could hypothetically receive a warrant they have to serve, the Ireland/EU intermediary (or the US company that provides them with the software/hardware) will have to backdoor the encryption.

I am not a lawyer, and I haven’t even read any of these bills. I’m just piecing together summaries. I don’t think anyone really knows how the three bills will interact in practice.

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

#244

Post by AnimalMuppet »

brianlweiner wrote: post #241
banads wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can someone explain why this is being heavily downvoted? Was something they said false?

Probably the ludicrous notion that somehow Hillary Clinton is to blame for electing Donald Trump rather than the millions of people who voted for him despite overwhelming evidence of his lack of fitness for the office.

Millions of people also judged Hillary as being unfit for office. She was a horribly flawed candidate. (Not saying that Trump wasn't...)

So, yes, Hillary in fact does deserve some of the blame. She was probably the only candidate the Democrats could have run who would have lost to Trump.

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

#245

Post by hedora »

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…

The 1 million user exception doesn’t apply if the government tells you that you need a backdoor.

Also, the CLOUD ACT is already incompatible with the GPDR, so cloud vendors are already in a situation where they’re forced to decide which law to break if they receive a warrant.

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

#246

Post by iron0013 »

0xy wrote: post #4

This bill wouldn't receive enough support to pass considering the libertarian wing of the Republican Party right?

“Libertarian” is just a word republicans use to try to get elected. No one who is anti-choice when it comes to what women do with their own bodies can really be Libertarian, and that’s basically all Republicans.

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

#247

Post by undersuit »

brianlweiner wrote: post #241
banads wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can someone explain why this is being heavily downvoted? Was something they said false?

Probably the ludicrous notion that somehow Hillary Clinton is to blame for electing Donald Trump rather than the millions of people who voted for him despite overwhelming evidence of his lack of fitness for the office.

If the accusation is true then she certainly shares some of the blame.

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

#248

Post by eitland »

eitland wrote: post #70
nix23 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would be exceptionally fine if Europe leave out this round of overall extremism...would be a first timer ;)

You wish. Norwegian politicians voted to allow police to control everything that crosses the border (edit2:)digitally. Which, in a small country like ours means pretty much everything. Edit: they did it despite the entire (edit3:) IT industry yelling at them and Amnesty International carefully trying to tell them to stop. That said, I guess the last word hasn't been said yet. Also equally bad things have been turned…

Too late to edit but I might have misunderstood Amnesty Internationals position:

According to some politicians Amnesty International liked the proposed law as it would place restrictions on the police. (Emphasis on might as I haven't reread what Amnesty International actually wrote.)

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

#249

Post by hedora »

fosco wrote: post #175

What can we do about this? if it is not this one there will be another one after it. I feel like the longer we wait the more likely this will get passed.

A constitutional “right to privacy” amendment would help, but it would need to be carefully worded to avoid the loopholes that have been established around unreasonable search and seizure.

Short of that, donate to progressive candidates, and tell them that this is your hot-button issue.

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

#250

Post by ardy42 »

cs702 wrote: post #186
bitxbitxbitcoin wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

> 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.

Honestly, that seems to be a bit of a distortion. What I've read about that makes it sound like some state legislators were fooled for a little while by a crank, which caused a dumb bill to advance a little before being killed. No law was ever passed, and the motivation appears to be less of trying to force nature to submit to law and more trying to secure rights to (what they thought) was advanced technology. Even the "regulate the value of Pi" aspect is a (popular) overstatement, since (IIRC) that value was only implied by the bill.

Post reply on HN