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

331–340 of 367 posts

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

#331

Post by RcouF1uZ4gsC »

desmondw wrote: post #48
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…

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

I think it will have the Gab effect. Gab advertises as a free-speech service. However, those that are already in the mainstream are generally on Twitter. Thus, the people that are on Gab are the people who got kicked off of Twitter, and and thus Gab is in general a cesspool.

The decentralized services won't be able to provide as smooth a service as the centralized ones, if for no other reason than network effects. Most people don't really care about end to end encryption. What percentage of WhatsApp users or Apple Messages users will quit the service if Facebook or Apple dropped end to end encryption. It will be pretty close to 0%. Thus what you will have is that the majority of people on the decentralized services are there because they are doing shady stuff. Thus the decentralized services will become hives of scams, dick pics, terrorists, child porn, alt right, etc. After a while, even being on one of those services will be seen as suspicious.

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

#332

Post by dehrmann »

earnitfeinstein wrote: post #327
dehrmann wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you live in California, let Senator Feinstein's office know you're not pleased with this. Unfortunately I don't think she's up for reelection this year, but if she doesn't retire next year, consider not voting for her in the next primary, Feinstein was one of the EARN-IT Act's sponsors, and a long-time opponent of cryptography.

Been there. Done that. Got the form letter response. Thank you for writing to me to share your concerns about law enforcement access to encrypted communications. I appreciate the time you took to write, and I welcome the opportunity to respond. I understand you are opposed to the “Eliminating Abusive and Rampant Neglect of Interactive Technologies (EARN IT) Act of 2020” (S. 3398), which I introduced with Senators Lin…

Remind her how unhappy she was when the CIA poked around Senate computers, and if even her title and the law won't protect you snooping, maybe cryptography isn't all bad.

https://www.cnn.com/2014/03/11/politics/senate-cia/index.htm...

You'd think this would have given both Feinstein and Graham a better appreciation for cybersecurity, but no.

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

#333

Post by drummer »

Nasrudith wrote: post #324
drummer wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately only dumbasses vote. Smart people won't vote away their souvereignty to others who are then going to make far reaching decisions about their life. Basically it's choosing to become a slave.

Sounds like the "dumbasses" are right here given that not voting doesn't give them any sovereignty and the ones making far reaching decisions actually have to worry about them voting for the other guy. Compared to the "smart people" who give up a small but very real role as a kingmaker for nothing.

Everyone is born with souvereignty, but tricked into giving it away to others who will rule over them by voting. Tricked again and again and most never learn, unfortunately.

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

#334

Post by ngold »

monocasa wrote: post #318
redis_mlc wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, that's a fact. I can't tell whether you approve of that or not, but here's the background. After the failure of the Treaty of Versailles at the end of of WW1, resulting in WW2, the Allies learned that unconditional surrender was needed to prevent future wars. The Japanese military command preferred that their troops never surrender. So the 2 options the US had were: 1) Curtis LeMay would use 10,000 bombers to na…

Except the Japanese didn't have the context to know the implications of the nuclear bombs. And the contemporaries noted that it was the Soviet declaration of war and invasion of Manchuria that forced their hand. The use of atomic bombs was superfluous.

That is an often overlooked part of the equation. If I remember correctly, Japan was a week or two away from being split in two like germany.

And Japan and the Soviet Union had been at each others throats since before there was a Soviet Union and Japan thumped the tsar.

I am sure Japan did not want to surrender under a Soviet flag that was looking for 50 years of retribution.

In a strange way it was an American coup to get peace signed before Russia started stripping the place down to the bone.

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

#335

Post by pyuser583 »

wan23 wrote: post #176
redis_mlc wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not in the US.

That some concentration camps in other countries were also death camps is entirely the point. They are not the same thing, but they're just one step removed. In fact, thousands of people died in the American camps even though there was not an official policy of extermination.

They’re not a step away from each other. Numerous countries, including those with strong norms against mass murder, intern suspected enemy sympathizers in times of war.

During the Gulf War (1992) the UK interned Iraqi citizens in the UK, just as they did with German citizens in WWII.

That was not a step away from mass murder.

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

#336

Post by pyuser583 »

Stupulous wrote: post #281
wan23 wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That some concentration camps in other countries were also death camps is entirely the point. They are not the same thing, but they're just one step removed. In fact, thousands of people died in the American camps even though there was not an official policy of extermination.

From some light research, it looks like 120,000 Japanese-Americans were put in these camps for 2-3 years and 1,862 died. In the country at large, if I'm reading this [1] right, 1,459,000 people died outside of the camps in the US, which had a population of 136,700,000. That's a ~1% base death rate per year, which would account for ~2/3 of these deaths in a year. This could be investigated further; was the average len…

Remember, many Japanese were paroled, with a good many serving in the armed forces.

I’d be interested to know how many of the 120k were released. And of those who died, who many died “on parole.”

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

#337

Post by seppin »

monocasa wrote: post #311
seppin wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They aren't allowed, is the point. You can be disappeared for speaking against Xi. Any comparison is a false one.

They absolutely are allowed.

OP's point is that protests happen in rural areas outside the central government's control. They are very much not allowed and usually crushed when found.

> They absolutely are allowed.

So you and I can go to tiananmen square tomorrow for a healthy protest and drum circle?

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

#338

Post by Flenser »

calebm wrote: post #262
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...

This is called the "Door in the Face technique" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Door-in-the-face_technique )

I'm surprised that page makes no reference to Overton Window which is also relevant:

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

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

#339

Post by blueterminal »

RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #331
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.

I think it will have the Gab effect. Gab advertises as a free-speech service. However, those that are already in the mainstream are generally on Twitter. Thus, the people that are on Gab are the people who got kicked off of Twitter, and and thus Gab is in general a cesspool. The decentralized services won't be able to provide as smooth a service as the centralized ones, if for no other reason than network effects. Mo…

That is why somehow decentralized applications have to be better than centralized ones.

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

#340

Post by viridian »

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) -…

I don't think even your basic desires are possible, because no way in hell you'd get the majority of states to buy in to point four, which might as well read: "Establish a Californian political hegemony and erode away a significant portion of innate state strength for 38/50 states". Couple this with the fact that you'd need to spell out more well defined, explicit version of the first and second (which you cannot do meaningfully and get a large majority of support) , and the idea is DoA.
Post reply on HN