Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Key senators have voted for the anti-encryption EARN IT act

eff.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 348 posts

Re: Key senators have voted for the anti-encryption EARN IT act

#31

Post by mdorazio »

icodestuff wrote: post #29
travisgriggs wrote: post #2

What I don't see in the writeup, is which senators are voting which way. I can tell from the writeup what Blumenthal thinks of it, but not any other committee participants. I really wish politicians would embrace a "we will make policies for things we can understand" motto.

Here's the list of cosponsors, who will presumably vote for it. I don't see the list of committee members who voted for it. https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/353...

Pretty even split down the aisle on this one. Which in this case is a bad thing.

Re: Key senators have voted for the anti-encryption EARN IT act

#32

Post by dane-pgp »

lyime wrote: post #19

If this passes wouldn't this accelerate the decentralized encrypted communication movement? How can government stop that?

Imagine if the government forced app stores, anti-virus companies, and OS providers to prevent the installation of "dangerous" applications. How many people are going to jailbreak their phone or run Linux on their laptop in order to install an E2EE chat app?

Re: Key senators have voted for the anti-encryption EARN IT act

#33

Post by GreenWatermelon »

Jerry2 wrote: post #26
pyuser583 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I very much doubt it. Law enforcement doesn’t seem too concerned about regular old HTTPS. I wonder why?

> I wonder why? NSLs: https://www.eff.org/issues/national-security-letters/faq Dragnet/Geofence warrants: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/google-tracked-his-bike... and https://www.logically.ai/articles/geofence-warrants-on-the-r... Dragnet/Mass-surveillance keyword warrants: https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2021/10/04/googl... Dragnet/mass-scanning of online storage: https://www.forbes.com/sites/thom…

LEOs? Can only think if Low Earth Orbits.

Re: Key senators have voted for the anti-encryption EARN IT act

#34

Post by echelon »

29083011397778 wrote: post #22

> and it will let the use of encryption be evidence in lawsuits and criminal trials How long until the comparisons to East Germany start? America is apparently gearing up for "If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear", with many seemingly agreeing with this sentiment. Perhaps more importantly, how have major journalistic networks not written about this bill in the worst possible light? When your sources w…

> how have major journalistic networks not written about this bill in the worst possible light?

I was originally going to ponder if it was because today's generation of journalists aren't privacy preserving, freedom of speech maximalists. While there are some that seek to limit freedoms as long as their "side" is on top, I don't think that's it.

The last five years of political discourse has worn us down. We're tired of the back and forth, constant everyday existential crises of democracy. If every day the world is falling apart, then something like this just looks like business as usual.

We're tired. Frankly we wasted energy on stupid things and lost sight of the war. And now they get to ram this horrible, freedom rotting legislation through.

Re: Key senators have voted for the anti-encryption EARN IT act

#35

Post by gonehome »

I wish HN was better at evaluating anything around this, HN's response to anything on this topic makes it hard to know what the actual truth is. Maybe this act is as bad as people are saying it is, but the Apple policy wasn't and the response here was the same. I'll defer judgement until I can actually read it.

Re: Key senators have voted for the anti-encryption EARN IT act

#36

Post by echelon »

gonehome wrote: post #35

I wish HN was better at evaluating anything around this, HN's response to anything on this topic makes it hard to know what the actual truth is. Maybe this act is as bad as people are saying it is, but the Apple policy wasn't and the response here was the same. I'll defer judgement until I can actually read it.

> the Apple policy wasn't

The Apple policy on your device ratting you out is abominable and anyone telling you otherwise is trying to sell you a brand.

What you deem illegal might not be the same thing Apple is told to treat as illegal. In this country or elsewhere.

You phone should not be the secret police.

Re: Key senators have voted for the anti-encryption EARN IT act

#37

Post by mancerayder »

echelon wrote: post #34
29083011397778 wrote: post #22

> and it will let the use of encryption be evidence in lawsuits and criminal trials How long until the comparisons to East Germany start? America is apparently gearing up for "If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear", with many seemingly agreeing with this sentiment. Perhaps more importantly, how have major journalistic networks not written about this bill in the worst possible light? When your sources w…

> how have major journalistic networks not written about this bill in the worst possible light? I was originally going to ponder if it was because today's generation of journalists aren't privacy preserving, freedom of speech maximalists. While there are some that seek to limit freedoms as long as their "side" is on top, I don't think that's it. The last five years of political discourse has worn us down. We're tired…

But, if words, hate and disinformation cause what we refer to as harm, don't the ends justify the means?

The collective shout from the new generations is a resounding Yes.

Sadly it's as historically uninformed as it is privileged to believe that words do harm.

Re: Key senators have voted for the anti-encryption EARN IT act

#38

Post by woodruffw »

GreenWatermelon wrote: post #33
Jerry2 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I wonder why? NSLs: https://www.eff.org/issues/national-security-letters/faq Dragnet/Geofence warrants: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/google-tracked-his-bike... and https://www.logically.ai/articles/geofence-warrants-on-the-r... Dragnet/Mass-surveillance keyword warrants: https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2021/10/04/googl... Dragnet/mass-scanning of online storage: https://www.forbes.com/sites/thom…

LEOs? Can only think if Low Earth Orbits.

"Law Enforcement Organization."

Edit: "Officer."

Re: Key senators have voted for the anti-encryption EARN IT act

#39

Post by woodruffw »

CogitoCogito wrote: post #17
wmf wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

HTTPS is not end-to-end encrypted (it kinda would be if we used P2P but we don't) so you can subpoena the server.

> HTTPS is not end-to-end encrypted (it kinda would be if we used P2P but we don't) so you can subpoena the server. How is https communication not end to end encrypted? And what’s the difference between subpoenaing a server vs an end user? The server is just another person/organization. Edit: Re-reading this I guess you mean that having a centra server acting as a middle man would probably not be end to end which I a…

A typical example is a chat application served over HTTPS: your communication with the server is encrypted, but the messages sent between you and your friends are passed through the server in the clear (through databases, logging, caching layers, etc.).

Re: Key senators have voted for the anti-encryption EARN IT act

#40

Post by woodruffw »

pyuser583 wrote: post #10

May crypto advocates are going about this the wrong way. Instead of emphasizing that crypto should be protected by freedom of speech, they should acknowledge crypto is a dangerous munition. Therefore it’s protected by the Second Amendment. The second amendment says the right to bear “arms” will not be abridged. Not firearms. Shouldn’t that protect crypto?

This is (hilariously) misguided on two fronts:

1. There is a significantly larger body of jurisprudence dedicated to protecting freedom of expression, versus whatever you think the Second Amendment guarantees you.

2. The right to bear arms does not entitle you to specific weapons. That's why you're not allowed to own a nuclear warhead, and why strong encryption was historically on the ITAR munitions list. Arguing that cryptography is a dangerous weapon (it isn't!) is a terrible idea.

Post reply on HN