3 ms·
The plain-spoken language of the bill is irritating, because it hides how much assistance it provides to the existing surveillance machinery. For example, it d
by ipsin 10y ago
The plain-spoken language of the bill is irritating, because it hides how much assistance it provides to the existing surveillance machinery.
For example, it doesn't exempt the FISA court, as far as I can tell, and seems to embrace that use.
I'm having a little trouble with the paradoxes... "Nothing in this Act may be construed to authorize any government officer to require or prohibit any specific design". Is this a fig leaf? If you design a system that makes it impossible for you to comply with the act, you're still required to comply, right?
I pray this can't pass in my country.
- iNate2000 10y agoI think the part about requiring a design means: we won't require what method you use, just get us the data.
- ocschwar 10y agoIt means "unlike with the Clipper Chip, we take no responsibility for finding the miraculous back door that will only work for US law enforcement. YOU do it. YOU face the embarrassment when it turns out to be usable by Vladimir Putin."