111–120 of 348 posts
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You were wrong then and you're wrong now. It's not really possible to be cordial about this topic. There should never be any process acting against the user's interests on a device that they own. Ever. Full stop. The only reasonable option is to do full encryption on the device without any system that allows inspection or identification of the material being encrypted. It didn't matter that vouchers enabled the decry…
It only ran when iCloud was enabled for photos - this makes it essentially a cloud feature. If this wasn't the case I'd agree with you. I think it's a better outcome if it leads to iCloud encryption. A reasonable person could think it's better to just have iCloud remain unencrypted and keep that separation strict in a more pure kind of sense (scan of unencrypted photos on server vs. hash threshold test on upload), bu…
Wrong. Physically, the routines run on the device. It is not a cloud feature by definition. There are no wormholes here. The work happens on the device. When this work happens the device's battery gets drained so it's happening on the device. It's not a cloud feature. Both technically and physically you are wrong here. I hate that you have this wrong and continue to say it. Stop saying it because you are actually lying.
It's not a better outcome because other companies with the follower-like mentality that most product managers and execs have would attempt to copy and one up Apple only to create a worse and more easily abusable implementation, just like the notch. Just like any socially acceptable easily marketable act that can be hashtagged and spread. That idea would have been an infection of the worst kind.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
people are extremely up-in-arms about something that apple already does, and that every other cloud provider do, but when they made it public everyone went crazy. now we don't have CSAM scanning, totally unencrypted and accessible iCloud Photo Library, and for what? because people want privacy. you don't own anyone else's cloud and you never will, and especially not with government intervention. while i support priva…
> you end up with nazis walking around if you don't have the ability to deter them. In general this is required if you want freedom of speech at all, because while nazis are seen as bad by $majority_general_population today, that same $majority_general_population in 1940's Germany had their own ideals for what people with certain interests were bad. In theory, even if Nazis took over the entire US Federal apparatus t…
There is no tradeoff to be made. The US government is explicitly prohibited from interfering with the liberty of its citizens. Every elected official swears an oath upholding this principle.
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.
> I really wish politicians would embrace a "we will make policies for things we can understand" motto. I don't think they'd make many policies if that were the case
That would be progress.
If this passes wouldn't this accelerate the decentralized encrypted communication movement? How can government stop that?
For example, by forcing Apple to remove the apps from the Appstore. (No sideloading is so great, Apple fanboys here say, no big deal, just do your research and buy another device. )
Apple would fight this all the way to the Supreme Court. This is IMHO a clear violation of the 1st amendment.
With such a conservative Supreme Court, I doubt they would look favorably at restricting speech of a company.
Besides, Apple’s App Store is available in many countries around the world; an American iPhone user could get restricted apps from its App Stores in other countries.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It only ran when iCloud was enabled for photos - this makes it essentially a cloud feature. If this wasn't the case I'd agree with you. I think it's a better outcome if it leads to iCloud encryption. A reasonable person could think it's better to just have iCloud remain unencrypted and keep that separation strict in a more pure kind of sense (scan of unencrypted photos on server vs. hash threshold test on upload), bu…
> this makes it essentially a cloud feature. Wrong. Physically, the routines run on the device. It is not a cloud feature by definition. There are no wormholes here. The work happens on the device. When this work happens the device's battery gets drained so it's happening on the device. It's not a cloud feature. Both technically and physically you are wrong here. I hate that you have this wrong and continue to say it…
I don't think there's much point in discussing further, the main disagreement is already visible in the thread.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We've never had a left majority in either part of congress.
Depends on your definition of left I guess? Dems held a majority in both houses + presidency 2009-11, and also 1993-95, and 1979-81...
You can watch the meeting from this morning here: https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/meetings/02/03/2022/executi... The discussion on the EARN IT act starts around 1:42:00 Any mention of concerns over encryption are with a really incredulous, dismissive tone. I have a hard time understanding whether that's actual ignorance on the part of the Senators, or if it's some kind of theatrics that plays into the broader politi…
Based on similar things I’ve seen here in Australian political circles it’s because they are so deeply misinformed that it’s become dogmatic. They like to get simplistic overview briefings and dislike getting sufficiently deep briefings that they can be informed of the fundamental flaws that simplistic briefings pass over. They also decide who works for them so no subordinate will “make them learn” and everyone perpe…
I know Hanlon's razor stands against me, but I just find the dynamics of a highly connected set of professionals in DC too conducive to passive knowledge of these issues to justify a bunch of "key senators" to be fully ignorant on these subjects. I find it way more likely that ignorance is a convenient narrative to push their agenda without accountability from the opposition.
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.
The last thing she did that she likes to take credit for was back in the 70’s.
California changed the way its elections are run to allow to democrats to run against each other in the general election, essentially just to eliminate her.
Somehow, she keeps getting reelected.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> you end up with nazis walking around if you don't have the ability to deter them. In general this is required if you want freedom of speech at all, because while nazis are seen as bad by $majority_general_population today, that same $majority_general_population in 1940's Germany had their own ideals for what people with certain interests were bad. In theory, even if Nazis took over the entire US Federal apparatus t…
> So there really is a tradeoff people have to realize when they consider either side's stance There is no tradeoff to be made. The US government is explicitly prohibited from interfering with the liberty of its citizens. Every elected official swears an oath upholding this principle.