4 ms·
Obama, Sanders and Clinton didn't want to discuss encryption around election year either. They knew their constituents are divided on it and that might give Re
by studentrob 10y ago
Obama, Sanders and Clinton didn't want to discuss encryption around election year either. They knew their constituents are divided on it and that might give Republicans a stronger position.
I believe that's why Congress wouldn't give the FBI a law to mandate that companies decrypt data. And, it sort of explains why Sanders and Clinton both said they sought "middle ground" regarding encryption and then never spoke about it again
If you've already made up your mind to do something that pisses off a lot of your constituents or your party's constituents, you should avoid discussing it during an election year. It's too bad, since more debate would've been more educational for everyone, but it is what it is. Politicians can choose what they want to talk about just like we can.
- rhizome 10y agothat's why Congress wouldn't give the FBI a law to mandate that companies decrypt data When? Feinstein-Burr is still in play. http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/technology/277467-encryption-showdown-burr-feinstein-vs-mccaul-warner http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/technology/277467-enc...
- studentrob 10y agoIts release was delayed. It was meant to come out last year. It didn't get released until after the Democratic debates, and even now it's only in draft form.
- rhizome 10y agoI still wouldn't say, "wouldn't give."
- studentrob 10y agoCool. I'm not you. "Wouldn't give" and "did not pass last year" are equivalent to me. Everyone understands Congress must vote on ideas periodically and what I wrote is shorthand for that.
- rhizome 10y agoYou're implying that there has been a vote on F-B at some point so far.
- studentrob 10y agoNope, I'm not. Congressmen discuss bills with each other before releasing. They usually won't come out with something unless there's some support. Obama's been asking for this legislation since Cyrus Vance's whitepaper in November 2015 [1] For further play-by-play you can skim the white house daily briefings for references to encryption and/or feinstein over the last few months [2]. [1] 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... [2] https://encrypted.google.com/search?safe=off&q=encryption+feinstein+site%3Ahttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.whitehouse.gov%2Fthe-press-office%2F&oq=encryption+feinstein+site%3Ahttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.whitehouse.gov%2Fthe-press-office%2F&gs_l=serp.3...14087.15122.0.16090.10.10.0.0.0.0.140.865.7j3.10.0....0...1c.1.64.serp..2.0.0.izbq7Y-6VfA https://encrypted.google.com/search?safe=off&q=encryption+fe...
- rhizome 10y agoIf all of this inside-baseball is what's underpinning your point, then "wouldn't give" is indeed doing a lot of work in your original statement.
- studentrob 10y agoOh brother. It was shorthand. Sorry if you didn't get my meaning at first but I think you get my point now.