3 ms·
I genuinely don't understand what the bill would do. This section seems to place no restrictions on the design of devices: (b) DESIGN LIMITATIONS.—Nothing in
by andrewmutz 11y ago
I genuinely don't understand what the bill would do. This section seems to place no restrictions on the design of devices:
(b) DESIGN LIMITATIONS.—Nothing in this Act may be construed to authorize any government officer to require or prohibit any specific design or operating system to be adopted by any covered entity.
If the bill says the government cannot place restrictions on the design of devices, but the bill says providers have to do things they can't do with existing designs (e.g. Whatsapp end to end crypto) what does this bill actually do?
- allemagne 11y agoThat statement of "no restrictions" is meant to mislead a non-technical person to make the bill palatable. The reality of the bill is in the part that requires companies to NOT build a system that they themselves can't break into.
- spdustin 11y agoIt says, in plain language, "we can't tell you which lock to use, just that you must have the master key in case we need it."
- andrewmutz 11y agoInteresting, I read it differently. I read it as being internally inconsistent. From my perspective it says "you need to hand over the plaintext if law enforcement asks for it," which would imply that a master key of some sort needs to exist. But then it also says that nothing in this act can be construed to require a specific design. But requiring a master key to exist would be requiring a specific design. The proposed law sounds internally inconsistent to me.