10 ms·
Feinstein-Burr: The Bill That Bans Your Browser
- puppetmaster3 11y agoYou had me at Feinstein. Some software is approved. Others, including open source is banned: dangerous. Feinstein! (unrelated Feinstein http://youtube.com/watch?v=HVOuK_KB9ew http://youtube.com/watch?v=HVOuK_KB9ew )
- MBlume 11y agoFeinstein is an authoritarian, anti-tech disgrace to CA. If she doesn't retire at the next election, she needs to be removed.
- beedogs 11y agoUnfortunately, the rusted-on wowsers in her district will never stop voting for her.
- YokoZar 11y agoHer "district" is the entire state of California. What are you talking about?
- puppetmaster3 11y agoMy guess is that the rest of the USA calls it 'the left coast', as in left-leaning. Compared to middle that is conservative leaning.
- protomyth 11y agoGiven the voters in California, someone needs to mount a primary challenge because no one will beat her in the general election. That how Rep Eric Cantor got ousted.
- URSpider94 11y agoCalifornia doesn't have party primaries any longer. All candidates run in a single primary, and the two highest vote-getters go on the ballot for November. When she's up for re-election, her opponent on the November ballot will almost certainly be a Democrat.
- protomyth 11y agoI guess that's one way to make sure an incumbent is on the ticket and lock out any hope of a 3rd party messing with your election.
- maxerickson 11y agoThe third party is free to run in the primary. (so for instance, if there are 4 candidates that get lots of votes in the primary, 2 Democrats, a Republican and an Independent, you can end up with 2 Democrats on the election ballot, I think the Republican would still see that as having their election messed with)
- protomyth 11y agoYeah, but it pretty much ensures they won't be on the final ballot.
- maxerickson 11y agoI wonder if someone has gathered the statistics from California elections. Comparing across different electorates isn't hugely meaningful but I would think there would be some evidence about how it impacted third party candidates.
- protomyth 11y agoYou also want to look at the votes that probably would have gone to 1st party candidates. I too would like to see that study.
- fryguy 11y agoI've voted against her (and Boxer) every time she comes up for re-election since I've been able because of her support of anti-technology laws. Unfortunately they're incumbents in California, so it's really difficult to get them out because they're incumbents so getting primaried is hard, and California is very liberal so it's hard to get a republican in unless they're an actor.
- kiba 11y agoIs Feinstein just plain ignorant, or willfully ignorant?
- Aelinsaar 11y agoI can't believe that it isn't a blend of both.
- linux_girl 11y agoThe Left thinks she's extremely intelligent and well-connected. In fact, people like the "Occupy Wall Street" folks believe she's behind "9/11". It's insane how respected/feared she is by the Left.
- puppetmaster3 11y agoShe is for sale, and apparently worth the money.
- afarrell 11y agoFor sale to whom? The software industry is among the richest industries in the US. Who could possibly out-bid them? Apple has $38 Billion in liquid assets [1]. Facebook has $18 Billion [2]. Amazon has $20 Billion [3]. Alphabet (fka Google) has $73 Billion [4]. Microsoft has $102 Billion [5]. In the last quarter of 2015, the largest companies by market capitalization were Apple, Alphabet, and Microsoft [6]. [1] https://ycharts.com/companies/AAPL/cash_on_hand https://ycharts.com/companies/AAPL/cash_on_hand [2] https://ycharts.com/companies/FB/cash_on_hand https://ycharts.com/companies/FB/cash_on_hand [3] https://ycharts.com/companies/AMZN/cash_on_hand https://ycharts.com/companies/AMZN/cash_on_hand [4] https://ycharts.com/companies/GOOG/cash_on_hand https://ycharts.com/companies/GOOG/cash_on_hand [5] https://ycharts.com/companies/MSFT/cash_on_hand https://ycharts.com/companies/MSFT/cash_on_hand [6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_public_corporations_by_market_capitalization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_public_corporations_by...
- Spooky23 11y ago
- afarrell 11y agoIt is very interesting that the richest* industry in the US cannot make their home senator bend to their will. Money can only buy advertising and campaign staff. It can't buy votes and votes are what keep folks in office. * Apple has $38 Billion in liquid assets [1]. Facebook has $18 Billion [2]. Amazon has $20 Billion [3]. Alphabet (fka Google) has $73 Billion [4]. Microsoft has $102 Billion [5]. In the last quarter of 2015, the largest companies by market capitalization were Apple, Alphabet, and Microsoft [6]. [1] https://ycharts.com/companies/AAPL/cash_on_hand https://ycharts.com/companies/AAPL/cash_on_hand [2] https://ycharts.com/companies/FB/cash_on_hand https://ycharts.com/companies/FB/cash_on_hand [3] https://ycharts.com/companies/AMZN/cash_on_hand https://ycharts.com/companies/AMZN/cash_on_hand [4] https://ycharts.com/companies/GOOG/cash_on_hand https://ycharts.com/companies/GOOG/cash_on_hand [5] https://ycharts.com/companies/MSFT/cash_on_hand https://ycharts.com/companies/MSFT/cash_on_hand [6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_public_corporations_by_market_capitalization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_public_corporations_by...
- argonaut 11y agoYou seem to imply (but sort of dance around it) that this is a bad thing. It's a good thing that politicians can't be outright bought. Most senators are afraid of looking weak on national security, and this usually outweighs whatever financial clout you can bring to bear. Your average voter does not understand encryption, but understands "this will let us crack into terrorist's phones."
- afarrell 11y agoI'm not saying that it is a bad thing. I'm saying that it is a contradiction of the beliefs commonly found on HN, reddit, etc. about how corruption works.
- sigmar 11y ago>I'm saying that it is a contradiction of the beliefs commonly found on HN, reddit, etc. about how corruption works. What, specifically, is being contradicted? Because your suggestion that tech companies can't influence one policy issue doesn't seem to contradict the belief that money influences politics.
- Aelinsaar 11y agoWhat an incredible blend of "isn't feasible" with "terrible idea" and just a dash of "wildly illegal".
- coldcode 11y agoEventually we will be reduced to smoke signals in the sky. Unless its over Washington DC where the hot air is moving fast.
- Buttons840 11y agoHow would this effect hashing algorithms? You can't reverse a password hash for example. Probably the least of the many many problems this bill would cause.
- majewsky 11y agoYou can always reverse a password hash. It just takes fucking forever. ;)
- whoopdedo 11y agoBut you're not reversing it, you're only brute-forcing a collision. It won't tell you if you've found the original password or a different string that coincidentally hashes the same with that particular algorithm.
- shitgoose 11y agofirst they take your high capacity mags. Then they take your certs.
- bbcbasic 11y agoGives a whole new meaning to the padlock icon on the address bar.
- zmanian 11y agoI think it is possible to create a movement against Feinstein. But it would be most powerful to turn the party against her. I don't think she would hold her position if other Democrats came to her and said she was hurting fundraising.
- kabdib 11y agoFeinstein isn't stupid. She knows the bill is over the top. They're deliberately taking an extreme position in an attempt to force a fake compromise (which will ultimately wind up being just as catastrophic to the US software industry). This is a classic tactic, and it works. Senate Committee on Candy: "Gum is a problem. Okay, life sentences for anyone caught chewing that evil stuff in public." The Public: "WTF?" SCC: "Okay, you're right, that's a little harsh. Let's meet in the middle and make it only a $100,000 per stick fine." The Public: "Whew!" ... and I'm guessing that any "compromise" would take the form of clauses along the lines of the FISA courts being able to rubberstamp people into compliance. In secrecy. In bulk. I cannot help but wonder if one of the requirements for being on the Senate Intelligence Committee is that the spooks have dramatically compromising blackmail material on you. This would explain a lot. (On the other hand, I believe that Feinstein is a genuinely bad person, and we would be better off without her).
- Rotten194 11y agohttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Door-in-the-face_technique https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Door-in-the-face_technique
- smartbit 11y agoI couldn't agree more, Feinstein has an hidden agenda. And if they fail this time they have a bill ready the next time 'an attack' takes place. See The Shock Doctrine [0] which centers on the exploitation of national crises to push through controversial policies while citizens are too emotionally and physically affected by disasters or upheavals to mount an effective resistance. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shock_Doctrine https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shock_Doctrine
- fleitz 11y agoHidden? It's pretty plainly obvious to everyone...
- dsharlet 11y agoI wouldn't assume that the general public is strongly against this kind of legislation. A subset (our subset) is, but the HN demographic is small compared to the rest of the country. The basic concept of strong encryption is not something that most people understand. People are projecting their ideas of physical locks and warrants onto digital systems because that's what they understand. It's flawed, but it's hardly the first or even biggest/most important issue where poor understanding by the public leads to bad legislation. Every now and then I have to drive through bumfuck Oregon, and the only radio stations are AM talk radio. It would be "educational" to spend some time listening to that every now and then. There are real people on the other sides of these issues that seem blindingly one sided to us. I think a lot of Congress probably just thinks that passing this kind of legislation (on encryption) will make most of their voters happy. Just like shutting down the EPA, or ...
- PretzelFisch 11y agoOdd didn't Feinstein previously try to pass a bill requiring companies to encrypt customer data like ssn and what not?
- kijin 11y agoShe seems to be pro-encryption as long as it comes with a backdoor.
- intrasight 11y agoStupid law. Most will ignore it. There will be little enforcement. But that is what makes it truly dangerous - selective enforcement. As this law can't be applied to open source software, I'm curious if it will result in the accelerated adoption of OSS.
- kelnos 11y agoWhat makes you think that? Anyone who worked on non-compliant software who lives in the US (or in a US-friendly jurisdiction) would likely be found liable, and fined and/or jailed.
- intrasight 11y agoNot a chance
- majewsky 11y agoThe point of this kind of law is not to make encryption disappear, it is meant to always have some reason to prosecute you if you disobey.
- koolba 11y agoRather than dealing with these cockamamie laws piecemeal, lets attack the root of the problem: term limits and age caps. That way instead of waiting for these half senile and all corrupt politicians to meet their maker, we introduce new blood into the system that hopefully understands the modern American people and modern technology.
- joesmo 11y agoI've always thought this. Limit all representatives, especially the president, to one term. That way they have no motivation to waste their time and our money on getting reelected. You don't even need to touch age then. If you then make it illegal for all representatives, especially the president, to accept donations and maybe give each candidate a set sum to spend we might actually bring democracy back. I'm certainly not holding my breath though. It's basically asking Congress and the president to commit permanent political suicide.
- kilroy123 11y agoI think we should limit the presidency to, one, six year term. That way they don't need to worry about getting re-elected and playing it safe.
- dexterdog 11y agoI would say one 8-year term with a removal vote in at mid-point. It takes 33% (or so) to keep your job in the mid-term and you run unopposed. If the axe is dropped then he becomes a lame duck and we do primaries and the like to pick a new president within a reasonable amount of time, not the shit-show of what we are going through now.
- koolba 11y ago> It takes 33% (or so) to keep your job in the mid-term and you run unopposed. Who votes at the 4-year mark? The senate, congress, or national election? If it's the latter, electoral or popular vote? If it's via popular vote I think it'd be next to impossible to eject anyone.
- callcallcall 11y agoInstead of complaining into the echo chamber of comments, here are some things you can do to fight back: Donate to the EFF: https://supporters.eff.org/donate/button https://supporters.eff.org/donate/button Call your Reps: http://TryVoices.com http://TryVoices.com (it takes 2 minutes) Petition the President: https://savecrypto.org/ https://savecrypto.org/
- archgoon 11y agoThank you for pointing me to TryVoices, it was helpful in finding the contact information for my representatives for Washington (state).
- quantum_state 11y agoPpl should koi force to throw these "law maker" out before they do greater damage to the rights of the citizens.
- mlakkadshaw 11y agoThis bill should be named as Feinstein's Monster
- nickysielicki 11y agoI think the solution to all of this starts with the creating alternative computer networks to the internet. You should be able to ping your neighbor without paying Comcast for the privilege. Once communities own our own local networks, and once our neighboring communities are linked, private networks will blossom and this nonsense will fade away. I don't think the layman associates computer network traffic with speech. But if you make private networks associated with localities, I think they'll righly start to see federal regulation as overbearing. (Aside: if you're in favor of federally mandated net neutrality, I think you owe it to yourself to think about what kind of effect it could have on that type of local network development.)
- Retra 11y agoHere's some 'Truth' for you: your post is indicative of the exact kind of thinking that leads people to demand back doors on encryption in the first place. "I think the solution to all of this starts with creating alternative means to access encrypted networks. You should be able to key into the someone's computer without doing any crypto work for the privilege. Once crypto comes with back doors, and the keys our in our hands, freedom will blossom and terrorist protections will fade away." Maybe if your solution were in any way practical or realistic, or if you -- the layman -- knew the difference between how to actually solve a problem and merely proposing fantastical solutions, we wouldn't need this discussion in the first place.
- nickysielicki 11y agoYou can fuck right off with the personal attacks, mate. You're wrong, too. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athens_Wireless_Metropolitan_Network https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athens_Wireless_Metropolitan_N... https://guifi.net/en https://guifi.net/en http://www.gowasabi.net/ http://www.gowasabi.net/ https://networkbogota.org/ https://networkbogota.org/ https://wlan-si.net/en/ https://wlan-si.net/en/ https://freifunk.net//en/ https://freifunk.net//en/ And that's not even mentioning telecom cooperatives and municipal ISPs that are popping up. > Maybe if your solution were in any way practical or realistic > fantastical solutions The broader point was about the idea that the average American doesn't see computer networks as something that can be local, and how that might affect how they interpret computer communication in the context of the first amendment. And (I think, at least) that would be an interesting point in its own right. But it doesn't have to be, because this is reality, and it's a recent development due to new software and hardware developments. And it's growing. So fuck off.
- joesmo 11y ago"As a practical matter, the (lawful) production of secure software in the United States becomes the exclusive domain of corporate entities large and rich enough to support (and at least attempt to secure) some kind of key-escrow and law enforcement compliance infrastructure." That's assuming that anyone still wants to do business with them. Most companies will just wither and die because consumers and especially the enterprise will move on to their competitors outside the US. I really can't think of a better way to destroy the US technology sector than bills like this.
- eggy 11y agoShe must totally ignorant of the matter, or have hired poor technical staff around her, or pure as the driven snow, since this will only pave the way for more breaches and dissemination of government and governing persons data on the internet, not just private citizens. I don't understand how they think there is a way to meet their aims without knocking down the whole house of cards. Perhaps when her data is hacked, and all of her personal and financial dealings are made public? I can see this becoming an Anonymous headline soon.
- zkhalique 11y agoYeah, this is bordering on ridiculous. But, if any of this is contemplated, you can bet it's also being contemplated in China, Russia and everywhere else. The standard response should be: "would you want us to do the same for foreign governments?"
- the_ancient 11y ago>>would you want us to do the same for foreign governments? Well ofcourse the wizards making magic... err software would have to ensure no other government ever will be able to access the data.. Only the Good Guys (American Government Agents) are the only that should possess the magic to unlock the wizard's text...
- zkhalique 11y agoBut what makes the "would have to" follow, let alone be enforceable? ANY sovereign government can pass a bill saying the same thing about any maker of any software, and they might even have long-arm statutes via agreements between them. It's not like Google doesn't have subsidiaries in China, and it's not like they're not restricted in China.
- krisroadruck 11y agoWhy is Feinsteins name attached to every piece of shit legislation that comes out. Does she just really hate freedom or something? Literally every bill that had the internet up in arms over the past 4 years had her name on it.
- fleitz 11y agoShe's more of an equality of outcome person than a equality of opportunity person. It leads to drastically different definitions of what a free society looks like. Most people aren't interested in capitalist striving, they want to live an average life free from any real danger.
- morgante 11y agoFeinstein is a disgrace. It continues to confound me that the home of the US technology industry is represented by someone so diametrically opposed to technical interests. If firms actually care about issues (and their international markets), they should be donating substantial sums to get rid of her.
- kempe 11y agoHerp derp unicorn...
- HelloNurse 11y agoWould this bill allow USA residents to use sane browsers, mandating backdoors in USA-made browsers but permitting import of crypto software from the free world? Or is the "loophole" closed by other bills?
- SeanDav 11y agoThe nett result of this will be US business will be less and less trusted by the rest of the world and bypassed wherever possible.
- 1234098123 11y agohttps://act.eff.org/action/tell-congress-stop-the-burr-feinstein-backdoor-proposal https://act.eff.org/action/tell-congress-stop-the-burr-feins...
- 1234098123 11y agohttps://act.eff.org/action/tell-congress-stop-the-burr-feinstein-backdoor-proposal https://act.eff.org/action/tell-congress-stop-the-burr-feins...