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

271–280 of 367 posts

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

#271

Post by arminiusreturns »

jeffparsons wrote: post #31

Computer criminals (especially the commercial variety) and foreign intelligence agents must be drooling right about now. If something like this becomes law, it's only a matter of time until a mass-breach gives, e.g., China or Russia the dirty laundry of thousands of politicians and business leaders in one fell swoop. I don't think I need to spell out what that would mean for what's left of democracy in the USA. I'm c…

You won't like the answer...

1. Most congresspersons don't even read what they are voting on.

2. Most congresspersons don't even write the bills that have their name on them, most of that work being done by staffers in collusion with K-street or the MICC.

3. If a congressperson reads it and doesn't like it, K-street/MICC is likely to put real pressure on them to change their stance. If they are a freshman in any way they will be threatened with all kinds of isolation in future if the bill is important enough.

4. When it comes to intelligence level stuff, many of them will be told in executive session about dubious national security reasoning, designed to cow them.

5. The people who fund their campaign cycles will be used to threaten their position.

6. If all of the above fail, it' is possible some form that Epstein -alike blackmail or bribery operations (that probably already got said congressperson in the past) will be subtly mentioned.

Only an extremely rare minority have the guts to stand up to any single instance of the above, much less all of the above. Congress doesn't represent it's constituents, it just pretends it does to get elected. Ever try to get a meeting with one? Unless you just donated 5k+, good luck.

The worst of the tactics are deployed rarely and only for the most "important" bills, and only against the more powerful positions. For example: on October 2, 2001, the patriot act is introduced. It is opposed by senators Tom Daschle and Patrick Leahy. They both come out publicly against the bill October 6th. Sometime shortly after, anthrax letters were mailed to them both, being the most deadly version of anthrax thus far sent... by October 25th, only one person voted nay against the patriot act...

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

#272

Post by cs702 »

ardy42 wrote: post #250
cs702 wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. N…

According to the rationalwiki link:

> The bill easily passed committee and was unanimously passed by the house. Representatives received it favorably, with one gushing that "The case is perfectly simple. If we pass this bill which establishes a new and correct value of pi, the author offers our state without cost the use of his discovery and its free publication in our school textbooks, while everyone else must pay him a royalty."

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

#273

Post by dang »

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.

Please don't. It's a guaranteed way to wreck a thread.

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23640586.

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

#274

Post by Spivak »

smt88 wrote: post #232
giancarlostoro wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whats worst is these should all be entirely illegal. Its literally warrantless searching.

As an ignorant non-lawyer, it seems to me that the "illegal search" argument won't hold up. Laypeople see encryption as a lock on a safe that the govt should be able to compel you to open. Why not use a 1st Amendment approach? Doesn't my freedom to speak also cover the "language" (i.e. encrypted bits) I'm using?

I still don't get why they're burdening the service providers with this? Like I know why but I'm surprised a bill that says that police can compel you to unlock your device hasn't come around.

Like why are you making it the mailman's problem?

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

#275

Post by gpanders »

hedora wrote: post #256
jbotz wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps more accurate: some nations are drifting away from democracy. In particular the US can't really be considered a full democracy anymore, and the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) which publishes a "democracy index" every year, has recently downgraded the US to "flawed democracy". I think that this could happen in the US shows that democracy as currently implemented in most countries still has significant desig…

No democracy has lasted more than a few hundred years. I think the constitution needed an expiration date. California’s proposition system is slightly better, but not great. We probably need about a half dozen amendments at this point. Here are a few: - “Right to privacy”, including against privatized surveillance. - “Right to civil protection” (end qualified immunity and binding arbitration / class action waivers) -…

> No democracy has lasted more than a few hundred years.

Is it even this long?

AFAIK the Greek version of democracy in Athens was very short lived, and the Roman Republic (which lasted about 500 years, give or take), was certainly not a democracy. The Romans famously sneered at the Greeks for what they called "mob rule" (demokratia).

Are there other historical democracies I don't know about that have lasted longer? Otherwise, the U.S. is currently setting the record for longest democracy at 231 years.

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

#276

Post by Hnrobert42 »

mratsim wrote: post #108
Hnrobert42 wrote: post #50

Perhaps conservatives will find compelling a comparison to the second amendment. When crypto was outlawed, only outlaws will have crypto. The letter I sent to my senators is as follows: I care deeply about the safety and security of my fellow Americans. I understand the challenges that strong encryption poses for law enforcement. I don’t want the terrorists and pederasts to win. Yet, I strongly oppose Senate bill 405…

Given how controversial gun ownership is, I wouldn't use that as an example, it might undermine the case.

I live in the rural South. This is a message that will resonate with my representatives.

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

#277

Post by pico303 »

Has anyone tried asking politicians who are all for this kind of legislation if they've thought about how it might affect them? I'm assuming they're not using government networks for private communications with friends, family, donors, mistresses, etc. Someone might suggest to them that once a bill like this passes, those silly "LEO-only" limitations will be hacked pretty quickly and the entire world will be reading their messages too.

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

#278

Post by jsjohnst »

big_youth wrote: post #147
naringas wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

but why do you think that 3 letters such as the FBI, DEA, or the NSA or CIA will stop using strong encryption? do you really think that the DHS will just break its own encryption because of some laws?

The thing is all those three letter agency’s make heavy use of civilian contractors and commercial products. There is no doubt they are using some bigco vpn or other software that can/will eventually be compromised.

> The thing is all those three letter agency’s make heavy use of civilian contractors and commercial products.

Using Ed Snowden’s autobiography as a point of reference, I’d say the IS agencies have probably 25% of the staff or higher as contractors, so definitely heavy use.

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

#279

Post by happythomist »

smolder wrote: post #124
fastball wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure that's entirely a reasonable comparison. The idea behind strong (especially E2E) encryption is that even with a warrant, the information in question is entirely inaccessible.

Yes, the same as any unrecorded conversation is inaccessible by warrant after it happens. Law enforcement doesn't need omniscience, but we do need freedom to associate and privacy in a democracy.

But encrypted conversations, by definition, are recorded.

With a warrant, law enforcement is permitted to search a safe containing written records of a conversation; why shouldn't they be allowed to search an encrypted consumer electronic device containing the same?

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

#280

Post by jetpks »

arminiusreturns wrote: post #271
jeffparsons wrote: post #31

Computer criminals (especially the commercial variety) and foreign intelligence agents must be drooling right about now. If something like this becomes law, it's only a matter of time until a mass-breach gives, e.g., China or Russia the dirty laundry of thousands of politicians and business leaders in one fell swoop. I don't think I need to spell out what that would mean for what's left of democracy in the USA. I'm c…

You won't like the answer... 1. Most congresspersons don't even read what they are voting on. 2. Most congresspersons don't even write the bills that have their name on them, most of that work being done by staffers in collusion with K-street or the MICC. 3. If a congressperson reads it and doesn't like it, K-street/MICC is likely to put real pressure on them to change their stance. If they are a freshman in any way…

You're not wrong on any count, but it's impossible to take your arguments seriously when you say "congresscritters"
Post reply on HN