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

An even worse anti-encryption bill than EARN IT

cyberlaw.stanford.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

361–367 of 367 posts

Re: An even worse anti-encryption bill than EARN IT

#361

Post by RussianCow »

happythomist wrote: post #349
RussianCow wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Not exactly. Yes, revealing the combination requires the person to implicitly admit that they know the what the combination is. But if the government can prove that they already know this "testimony" -- which they can in most cases -- then the "foregone conclusion" doctrine applies and the 5th Amendment privilege cannot be asserted. That's fascinating, thank you for sharing! That helps make my point, though, that t…

> That helps make my point, though, that the legal framework for handling encryption already exists and just needs to be clarified a little bit, instead of making new, far-reaching laws with serious implications on the landscape. I think this can be a reasonable argument, but it depends on whether criminal suspects generally comply with decryption orders. If most don't, then it is understandable that the government a…

That's fair. It's definitely a tradeoff. I guess I'm sensitive to it because I strongly value freedom of speech and the right to privacy, and generally like governments having as little power as possible (to lower instances of abuse). I realize that you have to draw a line somewhere, though, and I don't have enough data to make any judgement on whether something like this is necessary. But in any case, I certainly hope it isn't!

Re: An even worse anti-encryption bill than EARN IT

#362

Post by vulcan01 »

b112 wrote: post #128
el_don_almighty wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

lockpickinglawyer on youtube should quickly dispel any sense of security you have with the lock on your house. It is literally ZERO

Entering an unlocked house, in many common law jurisdictions, is tresspass at best. Picking a lock falls into break and enter, regardless of the name of the charge. Windows, and even walls offer little security in modern houses too! I can literally punch my way through vinyl siding, with chipboard under that, through to drywall.

This. Locks give you legal protection, not physical protection.

Re: An even worse anti-encryption bill than EARN IT

#363

Post by dragonwriter »

b112 wrote: post #128
el_don_almighty wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

lockpickinglawyer on youtube should quickly dispel any sense of security you have with the lock on your house. It is literally ZERO

Entering an unlocked house, in many common law jurisdictions, is tresspass at best. Picking a lock falls into break and enter, regardless of the name of the charge. Windows, and even walls offer little security in modern houses too! I can literally punch my way through vinyl siding, with chipboard under that, through to drywall.

> Entering an unlocked house, in many common law jurisdictions, is tresspass at best.

False, opening or door window is sufficient for the breaking part of burglary at common law, locks.are irrelevant. If locks are relevant, it's not because of common law.

Re: An even worse anti-encryption bill than EARN IT

#364

Post by Siira »

cs702 wrote: post #272
ardy42 wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> My favorite example is probably the infamous Indiana Pi Bill, via which local politicians wanted to regulate the value of Pi to be exactly 3.2, according a "proof" published by some crank. Honestly, that seems to be a bit of a distortion. What I've read about that makes it sound like some state legislators were fooled for a little while by a crank, which caused a dumb bill to advance a little before being killed. N…

According to the rationalwiki link: > The bill easily passed committee and was unanimously passed by the house. Representatives received it favorably, with one gushing that "The case is perfectly simple. If we pass this bill which establishes a new and correct value of pi, the author offers our state without cost the use of his discovery and its free publication in our school textbooks, while everyone else must pay h…

RationalWiki generally sucks. They are in for belittling other people, not presenting a neutral view.

Re: An even worse anti-encryption bill than EARN IT

#365

Post by luckman212 »

Flenser wrote: post #338
calebm wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is called the "Door in the Face technique" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Door-in-the-face_technique )

I'm surprised that page makes no reference to Overton Window which is also relevant: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window

Thanks for that. I was aware of this phenomenon but didn't know its name. Funny, the Overton Window article does link to DITF, but not the other way around.

Re: An even worse anti-encryption bill than EARN IT

#366

Post by b112 »

dragonwriter wrote: post #363
b112 wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Entering an unlocked house, in many common law jurisdictions, is tresspass at best. Picking a lock falls into break and enter, regardless of the name of the charge. Windows, and even walls offer little security in modern houses too! I can literally punch my way through vinyl siding, with chipboard under that, through to drywall.

> Entering an unlocked house, in many common law jurisdictions, is tresspass at best. False, opening or door window is sufficient for the breaking part of burglary at common law, locks.are irrelevant. If locks are relevant, it's not because of common law.

There's no universal 'common law'. Each jurisdiction has its own, diverged "branch" of common-law, each with its own peculiarities.

Primarily, based upon its history.

And as the legislative branch passes laws, they effect the power of, modify the scope of, or render inert many such judicial decisions.

This is why I said "many common law jurisdictions', not just 'common law'.

One vital part of common law, is intent.

A door with a lock on it? And you pick it / disable it? It is going to be exceptionally difficult to prove benign intent here.

An unlocked door? Well...

Are your friends 'breaking and entering' by opening the door and walking in? Again, intent here...

Did you knock, and "thought you heard something"? Again, intent.

There have been many court cases, but as an example, for a while, in Ontario, Canada, it was common for police to knock at the door, and simply enter saying "Oh, I knocked.. but no one heard me."

I kid you not.

But let's take a step back here, and give you an example as to why this becomes more difficult with an unlocked door.

Part of the issue here is, many houses have a covered, 'cold room' prior to the house proper. Yet, this is still part of the house. It has a roof and walls, a door. It is simply part of the house.

In many colder climates, you enter this area. This is fully expected. You're now sheltered, but it isn't heated. When the owner opens the "door proper", blowing snow and wind won't enter their house. Ergo, to knock, you must approach the "real door" of the house, inside this room, and knock.

It is also not immediately clear if the "very outside door" you are accessing, is a cold room, or the actual door of the house. How do you discover one way or the other? Why you open the door, and enter!

Intent is primary here. Entry into an unlocked house does not prove intent, as there is no 'forced entry'.

One thing ; in Canada, the police lay charges. A person need not even make a complaint, for the police to act. Nor does a person insisting that the police not charge someone, indicate this will happen! An example here ; the police discover assault of some form. They only need evidence, not willingness to 'charge'.

Now take this legal position, and assign it to people entering houses. Your friend enters your house, as he always does, without even knocking.

According to you, that's 'break and enter', yes? What differentiates here?

Why, intent of course!

Intent is primary, and a locked door creates a very strong validation of intent. An unlocked? Zero validation.

Re: An even worse anti-encryption bill than EARN IT

#367

Post by vms20591 »

zelphirkalt wrote: post #51

> Incentivizes technical innovation What a load of bs. Because those tech-freaks always find a way right? Innovation will simply appear without any doing on our part. We can just create non-sense bills and laws and they will make it work. They will magically find a way. These imbeciles do not even understand the simplest things about encryption, but want to make laws for it. Ridiculous. I would laugh right now, if it…

Problem is, other nations might follow suit & come with up with similar laws for their own means or persuasion from the US.
Post reply on HN