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

41–50 of 348 posts

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

#41

Post by inter_netuser »

woodruffw wrote: post #40
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 tha…

encryption is a defensive technology. It's like arguing bulletproof vests are weapons, but what do definitions really mean these days anyway.

Unfortunately, with encryption (and code as speech) - has not been tested at the supreme court as much as most think. It's still an open question to an extent.

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

#42

Post by smt88 »

mdorazio wrote: post #31
icodestuff wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I actually see it as hopeful.

If this were polarized, it would mean that no senator could risk offending their base by opposing it. They wouldn't budge in the face of popular outrage.

Since it's bipartisan, it means neither party's base badly wants it to pass (which we would already suspect from our own personal experiences).

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

#43

Post by paxys »

pyuser583 wrote: post #8
mawise wrote: post #4

I haven't tried reading the text of The Act, most of the press about it focuses on E2EE-type messaging systems. So presumably if this passes, Signal would have to move offshore or something? (for example) But what about HTTPS certificates, would The Act have any effect on them? Would there be any legal issues with (for example) running your own Matrix server? And what about hosting providers (instead of platforms). W…

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

Law enforcement is mostly concerned about corporate servers rather than home ones. E2E encryption puts those servers out of their control, hence the pushback.

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

#44

Post by nescioquid »

I've been reading about this same omniscience-lust of our corrupt republican representative democracy since the early '90s. I had thought that it simply sought to become more subtle, more refined over time. However, like any patzer, it is merely satisfied to give check where it appears.

Are we drawn in bitter impasse, or is there some intervening move to which we can avail ourselves?

The best I can muster (other than amassing a Bezos fortune and simply buying every shyster for sale) is to buy every elected shyster for sale (i.e. some rough approximation of five nine's worth of elected officials). My local newspaper reported on a school bus driver who was shot in the head, for which there is a go-fund-me effort. Every such mutual aid stop-gap is an indictment of our benighted society.

Maybe Hobbes[1] had it right, but then again, waiting for a messiah is tantamount to resigning.

[1] I love most the story about him in which he entered the club in which The Elements was turned to the final page. He chortled something on the order of "bullshit" or "humbug" and turned to the prior page: and so on and so forth to the first page where he could find no quarrel. The story is surely bullshit itself, but smells none-the-less so sweet.

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

#45

Post by iszomer »

mancerayder wrote: post #37
echelon wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I think what `echelon` is trying to say is that regardless of what "side" you're on, this opens the door to be used by both whenever an (arbitrary) precedence presents itself or is "politically expedient".

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

#46

Post by paxys »

mdorazio wrote: post #31
icodestuff wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yup, a lot of heavy hitters in there too.

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

#47

Post by paxys »

Dianne Feinstein, senior senator from California and presumably elected with majority support from Silicon Valley, is one of the co-sponsors of the bill. Talk about being out of touch. I also have no doubt that she wouldn't be able to explain a single line of text in the bill if asked.

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

#48

Post by heavyset_go »

unityByFreedom wrote: post #30

This could only work if there are monopolies that work with the government. I don't think we're there yet, but it is concerning that lawmakers view this as a viable piece of legislation. I wish we had a legislature who would recognize the importance of net neutrality to fostering competition. Instead, bills like this seem focused on ensuring monopolies so they can control how they operate.

> This could only work if there are monopolies that work with the government. I don't think we're there yet, but it is concerning that lawmakers view this as a viable piece of legislation.

Google, Microsoft and Apple all work with the government extensively, and they, either alone or together, hold monopoly and oligopoly positions in many markets.

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

#49

Post by mancerayder »

iszomer wrote: post #45
mancerayder wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think what `echelon` is trying to say is that regardless of what "side" you're on, this opens the door to be used by both whenever an (arbitrary) precedence presents itself or is "politically expedient".

Of course it is. It's a cynical power play. That's what happens when we spurn universal ideals like freedom of speech, hence "the end justifies the means". My opponents are so harmful, such a threat, that anything must be done, and nothing, including principles, should stand in the way.

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

#50

Post by heavyset_go »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #25

> it will let the use of encryption be evidence in lawsuits and criminal trials Is this true? Will use of encryption be evidence of guilt if this thing passes? Incredible.

Exercising the right to avoid self-incrimination is now evidence of incrimination.
Post reply on HN