> The makeup of the commission is also an issue. The law enforcement and intelligence community is overrepresented with 6 out of 16 seats. Because 12 of the 16

> The makeup of the commission is also an issue. The law enforcement and intelligence community is overrepresented with 6 out of 16 seats. Because 12 of the 16 commission’s members are required to issue subpoenas or approve any conclusions, those 6 members have tremendous influence over the commission’s investigations and the content of any report. Seat stuffing to control the direction of the committee is how you know they bias to control the "commission" in a given direction. The original commission members [both of whom are intelligence/LE biased] + 6 LE officers = 50% control, so it is actually worse than the EFF is saying. > The Warner-McCaul proposal ignores what technical experts, computer scientists, and others have repeatedly told Congress for more than 20 years: weakening encryption standards and mandating backdoors (or key escrow) for government access will make people and their devices less safe. Indeed, the very existence of the Warner-McCaul bill will be used to prolong an unnecessary conversation. Honestly, I think EFF is understating the risk. Its quite possible this Commission won't get vetoed like the EFF believes, particularly given they can try under Obama [who might veto it] and in 2017 under the next president. Its basically veto shopping since it looks like Clinton will win [who won't veto it]. http://www.theverge.com/2015/12/19/10628208/hillary-clinton-back-door-debate http://www.theverge.com/2015/12/19/10628208/hillary-clinton-... > "It doesn't do anybody any good if terrorists can move toward encrypted communication that no law enforcement agency can break into before or after," Clinton said. "There must be some way. I don't know enough about the technology to be able to say what it is, but I have a lot of confidence in our tech experts."