I don't really understand what about the bill is distinctly bad for encryption. Reading the Library of Congress summary, it's mostly just creating a body to draft guidelines. It seems like it's mostly just Congress punting the issue over to the executive branch, so there aren't any actual guidelines to oppose yet.
Oppose the Earn IT Act
331–340 of 570 posts
Re: Oppose the Earn IT Act
#332To Californians, Dianne Feinstein is one of the cosponsors of the bill in the Senate. It really grinds my gears seeing our senior leadership from California take actions that directly harm our interests, both towards our peoples' freedom and our businesses. I feel vindicated for voting against her in 2018, because I thought she'd be out of touch with our interests as a state.
She will be 91 the next time she is up for re-election. Hopefully she’ll finally retire instead. I’ve been hoping for that for over a decade. Feinstein could not have been re-elected if it weren’t for overwhelmingly strong support for her in Silicon Valley. If she is up for re-election again, please vote for the other candidate (who will probably also be a Democrat!). Also, tell your friends. She wants to ban encrypt…
I agree with you about Feinstein, but:
> Her voting record is further to the right than many republicans. She votes according to Trump’s wishes more than any other Democrat in the senate.
This seems to imply she's in the middle of the pack for her democratic peers as it relates to Trump's wishes: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/congress-trump-score/
Re: Oppose the Earn IT Act
#333Earlier quoted context omitted.
My nothing to hide argument is a little different; Nothing to hide is an incomplete sentence. Nothing to hide from who? Surly you want to hide your children from abusers and predators? Don't you want to hide your banking details from con artists and fraudsters? Your identity from identity thieves.. Your location from burglars, your car keys from car thieves or your blood type from some rich mobsters with kidney probl…
Wouldn't the counterargument be "but only the government would have access, and we can trust the government"?
Sure. But Kevin, who works in a government department, is someone.
Re: Oppose the Earn IT Act
#334Earlier quoted context omitted.
That argument doesn't work because some people are so conformist that every detail about their personal lives would be considered 100% unobjectionable to anyone they know or work for. (This is impossible when you know or work for diverse groups, but inside of a monoculture it's possible.)
> some people are so conformist that every detail about their personal lives would be considered 100% unobjectionable In this time and age, I find that highly doubtful.
It's not a question of whether it's true, it's a question of whether they think it's true.
Re: Oppose the Earn IT Act
#335Earlier quoted context omitted.
My nothing to hide argument is a little different; Nothing to hide is an incomplete sentence. Nothing to hide from who? Surly you want to hide your children from abusers and predators? Don't you want to hide your banking details from con artists and fraudsters? Your identity from identity thieves.. Your location from burglars, your car keys from car thieves or your blood type from some rich mobsters with kidney probl…
Wouldn't the counterargument be "but only the government would have access, and we can trust the government"?
Even if you grant "only the government has access," I think you still shouldn't be complacent, because what the government considers acceptable can change, and may not agree with what you think is acceptable.
E.g., maybe a govt comes into power that is strongly anti-gay, and punishes you for being pro-gay rights.
Or the opposite.
In general the idea that the government will always be reasonable and should have unlimited surveillance powers is unsound and unappealing.
Re: Oppose the Earn IT Act
#336Earlier quoted context omitted.
I like this argument. My normal response to "I have nothing to hide" is: "Cool, can I take a look at your browser search/reddit history?".
That argument doesn't work because some people are so conformist that every detail about their personal lives would be considered 100% unobjectionable to anyone they know or work for. (This is impossible when you know or work for diverse groups, but inside of a monoculture it's possible.)
Somebody prove it by posting their email password. If we require encryption backdoors, the odds of it all ending up on Pastebin at some point is about the same.
Re: Oppose the Earn IT Act
#337I don't really understand what about the bill is distinctly bad for encryption. Reading the Library of Congress summary, it's mostly just creating a body to draft guidelines. It seems like it's mostly just Congress punting the issue over to the executive branch, so there aren't any actual guidelines to oppose yet.
The problem in this case is allowing the executive to draft “guidelines” with the force of law. If the whims of the executive decide what laws we abide by, it’ll be an ever-changing landscape used to harass political opponents, various racial groups, and whomever are the current administration’s less-desirables.
Re: Oppose the Earn IT Act
#338Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wouldn't the counterargument be "but only the government would have access, and we can trust the government"?
Even if you grant "only the government has access," I think you still shouldn't be complacent, because what the government considers acceptable can change, and may not agree with what you think is acceptable. E.g., maybe a govt comes into power that is strongly anti-gay, and punishes you for being pro-gay rights. Or the opposite. In general the idea that the government will always be reasonable and should have unlimi…
Or the current situation in Hong Kong with China, for example.
Re: Oppose the Earn IT Act
#339“A Parable” by Perry E. Metzger (1993) > There was once a far away land called Ruritania, and in Ruritania there was a strange phenonmenon -- all the trees that grew in Ruritainia were transparent. Now, in the days when people had lived in mud huts, this had not been a problem, but now high-tech wood technology had been developed, and in the new age of wood, everyone in Ruritania found that their homes were all 100%…
> This would be equivalent to a town with no locks on the front doors, or where the sheriff has a copy of every door key (just in case he has to search the house). To be accurate though that's not exactly true. The sheriff doesn't even need a key to enter your house, he can get a warrant and bust your door down. This is a town where your house is indestructible and un-enterable without a key.
The problem with the doors and locks analogies is that it's not really what this is about.
This isn't about their ability to seize things you have after they get a warrant. It's that they want the ability to seize things you have before they get a warrant, just in case they get one later.
It's like requiring everyone to have video cameras in their house with recordings sent to law enforcement no matter whether they're under suspicion or not, and then claiming that it's fine because they pinky swear not to look at them without a warrant. (Never mind that then you can't prove that they're not cheating, and that it would be the world's largest target for organized crime and foreign powers.)
Re: Oppose the Earn IT Act
#340Earlier quoted context omitted.
I like the speeding analogy. "I have nothing to hide" "Have you ever sped on the highway?" "Well, yes" "Imagine if the government reveals it's been tracking everyone's speed, and has decided to write everyone tickets for speeding." "That's insane, the government can't do that!" "Exactly"
I don't know, tracking everyone's speed to issue tickets doesn't sound nearly as bad as having a recording of 100% of all remote conversations.
Speed with location, as speed limit depends on where you are driving, which is tracking of your movement.