> This needs to be framed as a political issue I completely agree it should be political. And I think it would be a big win for any candidate to express suppo

> This needs to be framed as a political issue I completely agree it should be political. And I think it would be a big win for any candidate to express support for backdoor-free encryption now that the facts are becoming clearer to the public. All we need is someone with some authority to stand up and share those facts. Unfortunately, Sanders has yet to comment on it, and some feel that his comments about Snowden have been less-than-brave, so he might not weigh in on this. People within his campaign feel it isn't currently a major issue for American voters. I've tried to share some information a couple of times but it hasn't really generated much discussion in the Sanders subreddit [1] If anyone has any contacts within his campaign, it would be a good idea to reach out to them and talk about the issue. There are two bills, one in NY [2] and one in CA [3], being proposed that would mandate backdoors in encrypted phones. These are based off of text originally produced by Manhattan DA Cyrus Vance in November 2015 [4]. It's just a matter of time until there is similar federal legislation [5] > The entire tech industry should be taking a stand right now. Setting the policy of the FBI & DoJ is more important than net neutrality or SOPA. Not to mention picking the judges that will be deciding these cases for the next 20 years. I think you also need to consider the powers that the US government does have over tech companies. Remember 5 years ago when all the tech companies issued oddly similar statements saying, "we want to tell you more about our cooperation with the government, and we are asking the government for permission to do that." Whatever came of that? Do we know more now? I think tech companies are timid because they know the DOJ can ruin them. We only found out much later the duress under which Yahoo found itself in 2008 [6]. And, Microsoft was slapped pretty hard under Bill for bundling IE etc. He pretty much always sides with the government now. Also, Apple was just fined fairly heavily in a loss to the DOJ over its ebook negotiations with publishers. Until the supreme court denied Apple's request to hear that case, it seemed like it could go either way. There are probably many more we don't know about. There is a big difference between fighting against the DOJ and fighting publicly with Congress over SOPA etc. Fighting the DOJ is often done behind closed doors where the public and Apple's users cannot have its back. [1] https://www.reddit.com/r/SandersForPresident/comments/49otvu/the_mass_surveillance_debate_kicked_off_by/ https://www.reddit.com/r/SandersForPresident/comments/49otvu... [2] http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/01/bill-aims-to-thwart-strong-crypto-demands-smartphone-makers-be-able-to-decrypt/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/01/bill-aims-to-thwa... [3] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/03/worried-about-apple-california-has-bill-would-disable-encryption-all-phones https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/03/worried-about-apple-ca... [4] https://cyber.law.harvard.edu/pubrelease/dont-panic/DA_Report_Smartphone_Encryption_Public_Safety_11182015.pdf https://cyber.law.harvard.edu/pubrelease/dont-panic/DA_Repor... [5] http://www.politico.com/tipsheets/morning-cybersecurity/2016/02/march-is-encryption-bill-month-hackers-going-after-japans-infrastructure-a-mixed-final-2015-tally-212865 http://www.politico.com/tipsheets/morning-cybersecurity/2016... [6] http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/11/yahoo-nsa-lawsuit-documents-fine-user-data-refusal http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/11/yahoo-nsa-lawsu...