Live data from Hacker News

Joe Biden tried to ban email encryption back in 1991

dustinkirkland.wordpress.com

101–110 of 126 posts

Re: Joe Biden tried to ban email encryption back in 1991

#101

On this issue, Biden was clearly on the wrong side of history (and some of the fundamental tenets upon which the US was founded). But I don't think anyone, even ardent Obama supporters, would argue that he's the brightest star in the sky anyway. He is perhaps the strongest protection against an Obama assassination, since no one would want him to take office. Fortunately, the system worked in this case. A dangerous la…

I personally consider myself a Biden fan. I have witnessed him talk sense on a number of issues in ways many politicians do not. (Example: several statements on Iraq, from before it was common in US politics to think that war was a bad idea.) The "Biden is dumb" narrative IMO mainly comes from DC-based press that exaggerates gaffes (real and perceived) and tends to blindly re-state existing DC press narratives. I thi…

> I think the real story here is that US senator is not a good qualification for understanding crypto or technology as a whole.

I think the issue the tendency of the government to constantly chip away at privacy. Terrorism, communism, illegal porn and drugs are all used as reasons.

Trying to find the reason Biden did what he did is not effective. We may never know the reason. We can look at actions -- what bills were supported, by whom and how far they have gotten in the pipeline. Biden's name or track record might not be relevant. This could have also been someone else.

For example the top half of the whole discussion is between chernevik and tptachek whether Biden is in general pro or against encryption. It doesn't really matter what Biden personally believes. But it matters how many and how far and how often such bills make it. Some are passed (like the warrant-less wiretapping), some die quickly.

Also there are countries that make use of encryption illegal. In this country, other laws have passed that chipped away at privacy, so it is understandable why a lot of people feel a little jittery about this topic -- because they can see this kind of bills passing with not too much opposition.

Re: Joe Biden tried to ban email encryption back in 1991

#102

On this issue, Biden was clearly on the wrong side of history (and some of the fundamental tenets upon which the US was founded). But I don't think anyone, even ardent Obama supporters, would argue that he's the brightest star in the sky anyway. He is perhaps the strongest protection against an Obama assassination, since no one would want him to take office. Fortunately, the system worked in this case. A dangerous la…

>>He is perhaps the strongest protection against an Obama assassination, since no one would want him to take office. I would argue that the Secret Service is by far the strongest protection.

The pen, or in this case the mere thought that Biden might wind up holding the pen, is mightier than the sword. I think that would make for a scary world that no one wants to see.

Re: Joe Biden tried to ban email encryption back in 1991

#103
post #23
post #20

I wrote about this four years ago when Obama chose Biden as his running mate: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10024163-38.html Note one House committee did vote in the 1990s to ban the "manufacture, distribution, or import of any encryption product that did not include a back door for the federal government," but that bill failed to become law: http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20032910-281.html Excerpts: Biden's b…

You wrote about this incorrectly; you cited Biden's language, which begins "It is the sense of Congress that", and then wrote "Translated, that means turn over your encryption keys", which it plainly does not mean, because sense-of-the-Senate language doesn't create law. Then, you wrote "Joe Biden made his second attempt to introduce such legislation in the form of the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Ac…

Not this again. We already have a thread with this line of bs, go polute that.

Re: Joe Biden tried to ban email encryption back in 1991

#104
post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_of_cryptography_in_the_U... I was thinking of when the limit of crypto for export was 40 bits SSL, which would have made all e-commerce impossible due to the uselessness of 40 bit crypto. Luckily that was changed.

Export controls were a pain in the ass, but strong cryptography (or what we considered to be strong crypto at the time) was prevalent during the worst of it. Cryptography itself was never outlawed.

Useless semantics. Just because that strong crypto was somewhat de facto while the gears in washinton turned, doesn't negate the fact that the US has and still has a Orwellian slant to technology law, predicated on the desire for control and power over everyday interactions.

Re: Joe Biden tried to ban email encryption back in 1991

#105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I won't speak for Thomas, but I used to teach "Politics and the English Language" in rhetoric and argumentation courses. There are two important things worth pointing out here: 1. Your understanding of the problem domain of language and politics, at least in this post, is incredibly naive. For a rigorous analysis of the subject, try something like Chaïm Perelman's Treatise on Argumentation or one of Ronald Dworkin's…

Ooh, wow, arguments from authority. As you are so learned, and Chaïm and Ronald aren't here, perhaps you'd care to offer their more proper reading of Orwell. And as you're so learned, you'll immediately know my remark as a paraphrase, and of whom. Right? Because when I read a book, I do so in such a fashion as to repeat its argument, rather than assign others reading I couldn't do properly in the first place. Nor can…

You may be correct, but it's obscured by the fact that you're being a dick.

Don't do that.

Re: Joe Biden tried to ban email encryption back in 1991

#106

One little-known fact about Biden is that he authored the [Omnibus Counterterrorism Act of 1995][1]. This bill was a precursor to the PATRIOT Act in several ways, such as by ["allowing secret evidence to be used in prosecutions, expanding FISA and wiretap laws, creating a new federal crime of 'terrorism' that could be invoked based on political beliefs, permitting the U.S. military to be used in civilian law enforcem…

I like your username.

Re: Joe Biden tried to ban email encryption back in 1991

#107
post #93

On this issue, Biden was clearly on the wrong side of history (and some of the fundamental tenets upon which the US was founded). But I don't think anyone, even ardent Obama supporters, would argue that he's the brightest star in the sky anyway. He is perhaps the strongest protection against an Obama assassination, since no one would want him to take office. Fortunately, the system worked in this case. A dangerous la…

> On this issue, Biden was clearly on the wrong side of history (and some of the fundamental tenets upon which the US was founded). Probably on the wrong side of history, but it's pure historical revisionism to say it opposed any principle the U.S. was founded upon. Common law courts in England had broad subpoena powers (just like modern U.S. courts). Moreover, investigators had unlimited access to private documents…

My thinking on the subject of Biden's failed attempt to require that the government be able to recover encrypted information is more akin to attempting to require that everyone leave a copy of their house keys with the local police station just in case they decide to get a warrant to search your house. That is conceptually identical to what Biden proposed, yet such an idea would be decidedly un-American and any politician that raised such an idea would be publicly skewered.

Re: Joe Biden tried to ban email encryption back in 1991

#108
post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think term limits only make sense if you believe that you don't get better at being a legislator with experience. If you don't, then yes, absolutely, term limits will make buying votes far more expensive, but if you do, then you're constantly running the country with a team of redshirt freshmen, which may well be worse than corporate interests being able to influence policy decisions.

And those redshirt freshmen would be dealing with experienced professors of lobbying. I don't think term limits would do much (if anything) to lessen the influence of corporate interests and could easily make the problem worse.

But it does reminds me of this:

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3161455

Why didn't any country try this?

Re: Joe Biden tried to ban email encryption back in 1991

#109
post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> On this issue, Biden was clearly on the wrong side of history (and some of the fundamental tenets upon which the US was founded). Probably on the wrong side of history, but it's pure historical revisionism to say it opposed any principle the U.S. was founded upon. Common law courts in England had broad subpoena powers (just like modern U.S. courts). Moreover, investigators had unlimited access to private documents…

My thinking on the subject of Biden's failed attempt to require that the government be able to recover encrypted information is more akin to attempting to require that everyone leave a copy of their house keys with the local police station just in case they decide to get a warrant to search your house. That is conceptually identical to what Biden proposed, yet such an idea would be decidedly un-American and any polit…

It's not "conceptually identical" at all. With some legal due process, the police force can violently breach the front door of your house if you refuse to let them in, and similarly open locked safes. Though this process may be expensive for them, it is not impossible. Cheap, widely available systems to provide provably impenetrable security against government intrusion is a relatively new phenomenon.
Post reply on HN