141–150 of 348 posts
So basically this is just the government using private companies to do an end run around the 4th amend.?
It's not an end run because the 4th amendment allows warrants.
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. )
Because it improves security... I hate that the loudest voices in our industry so often fail to look beyond the horizon. This is a very predictable weak point.
And mobile security is so great. Not that user data is often exfiltrated by a lot of these vetted apps at all...
I contacted my representative, as it takes ~1min. Please I urge all to do it! p.s. I am Computer Security expert and urge all from point of understanding this both technically and as a value to all of US citizens! Crooked forces are behind this trying to misrepresent this as ability to read all messages that will allow them to "save the children" which is just an excuse for the "foot through the door" or capability f…
I don't think people typically contact their representatives, but I figured its a good time to start. The EFF made it really easy to lookup and send a canned message to my senators. I plan to try to call the office tomorrow. I assume I'll get stopped at their secretaries, but even that might be enough to just leave an extra bump of persuasion.
Do not let US become China! (or worse) Government can not stop criminals to use end-to-end encryption. With this bill only regular internet users loose privacy! This is not how it is represented to Senators and instead they are offered a lie while they do not understand, so we need to act. Crooked forces are behind this! I am Computer Security expert and urge all from point of understanding this both technically and…
Love how these same senators protect the right to a gun because “only good guys would follow the law”
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 have no evidence for this, but I think it's highly likely they're using "ignorance" as a form of brinkmanship or plausible deniability. If these senators speak with any of their colleagues, they'll know the risk and reward tradeoffs of these decisions, but they'll choose to side with interests that benefit their own person. I know Hanlon's razor stands against me, but I just find the dynamics of a highly connected…
The media playing gotcha has made it fundamentally dangerous for a politician to be publicly wrong on any topic. The reaction is to avoid engaging with complex issues.
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
I contacted my representative, as it takes ~1min. Please I urge all to do it! p.s. I am Computer Security expert and urge all from point of understanding this both technically and as a value to all of US citizens! Crooked forces are behind this trying to misrepresent this as ability to read all messages that will allow them to "save the children" which is just an excuse for the "foot through the door" or capability f…
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...
I'm disappointed that Jacky Rosen (D - Nevada) is a co-sponsor. She's a former software developer and should know better. I just watched some of the Senate hearing on Log4J and she seemed reasonably together on security, open source etc. I was feeling optimistic that she could become the Senatorial analogue to Judge Alsup[1]! But if she's on board with EARN IT, scratch that idea. [1] https://www.theverge.com/2017/10/…
The personal ideas and knowledge of any given politician are just a starting point for the political choices they make.
“[Use of end to end encryption] shall not serve as an independent basis for liability of a provider […]” but the fact that you did so can now be used against you in court.
The spirit of this bill is to make WhatsApp liable from the moment they become aware of specific instances of child pornography being shared on their platform, and only then after they’ve been shown to be doing nothing to take it down. If they don’t do anything after they’ve verified those specific instances then they are liable.
What’s being implied by all the senators and the journalism around this is something like “everyone knows that in general these E2E platforms carry child porn, so in general they need to turn off E2E.”
The text of the bill doesn’t seem to be talking in generalities. It’s talking about specific criminal cases involving specific instances of abuse? Or maybe it anticipates some sort of action where the government is the plaintiff?
It’s all very confusing.
Do not let US become China! (or worse) Government can not stop criminals to use end-to-end encryption. With this bill only regular internet users loose privacy! This is not how it is represented to Senators and instead they are offered a lie while they do not understand, so we need to act. Crooked forces are behind this! I am Computer Security expert and urge all from point of understanding this both technically and…