5 ms·

Feinstein 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 wil

by kabdib 11y ago

Feinstein 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 ago
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Door-in-the-face_technique https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Door-in-the-face_technique
smartbit 11y ago
I 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 ago
  Hidden? It's pretty plainly obvious to everyone...
dsharlet 11y ago
I 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 ...
- rpgmaker 11y ago
  > I think a lot of Congress probably just thinks that passing this kind of legislation (on encryption) will make most of their voters happy. Nope. There's a faction in the natsec establishment that wants this and so they're getting it. Most people don't care or know enough about encryption to apply that kind of pressure on their congressmen.
- 13of40 11y ago
  > Every now and then I have to drive through bumfuck Oregon, and the only radio stations are AM talk radio. I downvoted you because of this. When you're on this soapbox, please bear in mind that some of the people listening are actually residents of bumfuck Oregon. Also, not everyone in bumfuck Oregon is on the political tack that you associate with bumfuck Oregon. Also, they have FM. (Mostly country, I'll grant you that, but still.)
  - dsharlet 11y ago
    I called it that because that's where I'm from... And I don't really consider it derogatory. It's really an accurate description. I was referring to the literal middle of nowhere, where no one lives, not even small towns. The places you drive to get to the small towns. edit: I think maybe the confusion here is that I was not intending to make an association between the people of Oregon and the AM radio callers I was referring to. (The shows you get are nationally syndicated, aren't they?) I only said that because that's the only time I listen to talk radio, and unless you drive through places where it's hard to find any radio station, you probably won't have listened to it before. It's very different from e.g. Fox News, where you hear professional pundits talking about these issues. You'll hear real people stating opinions that others in this thread are assuming can only be the result of blackmail. That was the whole point of the post.
discardorama 11y ago
> I believe that Feinstein is a genuinely bad person, and we would be better off without her As a Californian, I am constantly ashamed at calling her "my" senator. Why the fuck can't someone reasonable run against her? I guess for the same reason that Bernie is having so much trouble: the Democratic Party is sorta like the Communist Party in USSR; you have to be an insider to get anywhere.
- rhizome 11y ago
  I think it's more like Jay Bybee's appointment to the 9th Circuit: it keeps the weirdos out West from getting too out of hand.
- incongruity 11y ago
  The two party system is decidedly broken. Primaries force us into accepting evil or awful because we've been convinced that at least it's the lesser evil and that we should be happy for that. Bring about instant runoff voting or a similar system and you strip parties of their power and we rid ourselves of self-serving incumbents quickly.
  - WildUtah 11y ago
    California doesn't have party primaries. There's a June election and the top two vote winners go on to November, even if from the same party. That's why California has a chance to prevent a second Feinstein in Kamala Harris. It will be two Democrats in November: drug prosecutor Harris and grassroots liberal Loretta Sanchez.
    - jonah 11y ago
      This is new though.
    - incongruity 11y ago
      That's a start, but until you can let people stop having to pick between voting their conscience and voting out of fear, the parties and incumbents can still wield a lot of power, IMHO. Having an election that lets people rank their preferences could remove the voting out of fear and let us actually focus on voting for our hopes and our ideals.
WildUtah 11y ago
That's why it's so important to add another Feinstein to the Senate from California this fall. Kamala Harris is a classic anti-drug warrior prosecutor with no respect for civil rights to join Feinstein. Don't even think of choosing a grassroots Democrat like Loretta Sanchez instead. The Washington establishment wouldn't like it.
- millstone 11y ago
  I have a positive view of Harris and this is the first time I've encountered this line of criticism. She doesn't sound like an "anti-drug warrior" [1]. What examples do you have in mind? [1]: http://blog.sfgate.com/smellthetruth/2015/05/19/kamala-harris-war-on-drugs-failed-legalize-medical-marijuana/ http://blog.sfgate.com/smellthetruth/2015/05/19/kamala-harri...
  - WildUtah 11y ago
    Harris was elected DA in San Francisco in a race against DA Terence Hallinan who was famous for soft-pedaling drug user prosecutions. She immediately stepped them up. Harris first started barely supporting medical marijuana after constituencies forced her to recently. She's been giving support to federal prosecutions that target dispensaries for years as DA and AG. She's been saying that she'll tone down drug prosecutions in campaigns and then pushing harder for more vicious enforcement than ever once she gains power in every election she's ever run. And she still doesn't support marijuana legalization. Still! In California in 2016. She's smooth and a good communicator, but Harris is all Feinstein inside.
deciplex 11y ago
It's too often this instead: Senate Committee on Candy: "Gum is a problem. Okay, life sentences for anyone caught chewing that evil stuff in public." The Public: "Well, the law's the law. If criminals don't want to wind up in prison getting raped then they should have thought of that before they chewed a bunch of gum. This is fine. Everything is fine."
caf 11y ago
It's so classic it has a name: an ambit claim.
SeriousM 11y ago
That's clawed price anchoring tactic. Just make a high price offer and everything below that seems very cheap. Same with this bill, but I guess everyone knows that his bill can't change the reality but badly damage it.
Bluestrike2 11y ago
Don't underestimate their potential for ignorance and stupidity. I think the Feinstein bill represents a genuine attempt to push their solution through and not an attempt to force a false compromise later. For that strategy to work, they'd at least need a decent understanding of encryption in order to draft a proposal that was so over the top that the desired compromise would look palatable by comparison. Have you come across any statements from Feinstein, Burr, or their supporters to suggest that they have anything remotely close to that sort of technical understanding of the issues at stake? I sure as hell haven't. Their bill's text is actually pretty straight-forward when read in light of the level of ignorance on display in their interviews and the WSJ op-ed piece. In fact, the bill matches up really well with how they think encryption actually works: encryption is bad, so just make it effectively disappear. Unfortunately, the people who can best explain to them why they're wrong are the same people they've already written off as just another competing advocacy group instead of subject-matter experts. To be fair, that's pretty common in Washington. But the jadedness it creates is hugely problematic when they mischaracterize things. So instead of recognizing the community's pretty obvious credibility, they see the exact opposite.

by kabdib 11y ago

Rotten194 11y ago

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Door-in-the-face_technique https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Door-in-the-face_technique

smartbit 11y ago

I 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 ago
Hidden? It's pretty plainly obvious to everyone...

dsharlet 11y ago

I 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 ...

rpgmaker 11y ago
> I think a lot of Congress probably just thinks that passing this kind of legislation (on encryption) will make most of their voters happy. Nope. There's a faction in the natsec establishment that wants this and so they're getting it. Most people don't care or know enough about encryption to apply that kind of pressure on their congressmen.
13of40 11y ago
> Every now and then I have to drive through bumfuck Oregon, and the only radio stations are AM talk radio. I downvoted you because of this. When you're on this soapbox, please bear in mind that some of the people listening are actually residents of bumfuck Oregon. Also, not everyone in bumfuck Oregon is on the political tack that you associate with bumfuck Oregon. Also, they have FM. (Mostly country, I'll grant you that, but still.)
- dsharlet 11y ago
  I called it that because that's where I'm from... And I don't really consider it derogatory. It's really an accurate description. I was referring to the literal middle of nowhere, where no one lives, not even small towns. The places you drive to get to the small towns. edit: I think maybe the confusion here is that I was not intending to make an association between the people of Oregon and the AM radio callers I was referring to. (The shows you get are nationally syndicated, aren't they?) I only said that because that's the only time I listen to talk radio, and unless you drive through places where it's hard to find any radio station, you probably won't have listened to it before. It's very different from e.g. Fox News, where you hear professional pundits talking about these issues. You'll hear real people stating opinions that others in this thread are assuming can only be the result of blackmail. That was the whole point of the post.

discardorama 11y ago

> I believe that Feinstein is a genuinely bad person, and we would be better off without her As a Californian, I am constantly ashamed at calling her "my" senator. Why the fuck can't someone reasonable run against her? I guess for the same reason that Bernie is having so much trouble: the Democratic Party is sorta like the Communist Party in USSR; you have to be an insider to get anywhere.

rhizome 11y ago
I think it's more like Jay Bybee's appointment to the 9th Circuit: it keeps the weirdos out West from getting too out of hand.
incongruity 11y ago
The two party system is decidedly broken. Primaries force us into accepting evil or awful because we've been convinced that at least it's the lesser evil and that we should be happy for that. Bring about instant runoff voting or a similar system and you strip parties of their power and we rid ourselves of self-serving incumbents quickly.
- WildUtah 11y ago
  California doesn't have party primaries. There's a June election and the top two vote winners go on to November, even if from the same party. That's why California has a chance to prevent a second Feinstein in Kamala Harris. It will be two Democrats in November: drug prosecutor Harris and grassroots liberal Loretta Sanchez.
  - jonah 11y ago
    This is new though.
  - incongruity 11y ago
    That's a start, but until you can let people stop having to pick between voting their conscience and voting out of fear, the parties and incumbents can still wield a lot of power, IMHO. Having an election that lets people rank their preferences could remove the voting out of fear and let us actually focus on voting for our hopes and our ideals.

WildUtah 11y ago

That's why it's so important to add another Feinstein to the Senate from California this fall. Kamala Harris is a classic anti-drug warrior prosecutor with no respect for civil rights to join Feinstein. Don't even think of choosing a grassroots Democrat like Loretta Sanchez instead. The Washington establishment wouldn't like it.

millstone 11y ago
I have a positive view of Harris and this is the first time I've encountered this line of criticism. She doesn't sound like an "anti-drug warrior" [1]. What examples do you have in mind? [1]: http://blog.sfgate.com/smellthetruth/2015/05/19/kamala-harris-war-on-drugs-failed-legalize-medical-marijuana/ http://blog.sfgate.com/smellthetruth/2015/05/19/kamala-harri...
- WildUtah 11y ago
  Harris was elected DA in San Francisco in a race against DA Terence Hallinan who was famous for soft-pedaling drug user prosecutions. She immediately stepped them up. Harris first started barely supporting medical marijuana after constituencies forced her to recently. She's been giving support to federal prosecutions that target dispensaries for years as DA and AG. She's been saying that she'll tone down drug prosecutions in campaigns and then pushing harder for more vicious enforcement than ever once she gains power in every election she's ever run. And she still doesn't support marijuana legalization. Still! In California in 2016. She's smooth and a good communicator, but Harris is all Feinstein inside.

deciplex 11y ago

It's too often this instead: Senate Committee on Candy: "Gum is a problem. Okay, life sentences for anyone caught chewing that evil stuff in public." The Public: "Well, the law's the law. If criminals don't want to wind up in prison getting raped then they should have thought of that before they chewed a bunch of gum. This is fine. Everything is fine."

caf 11y ago

It's so classic it has a name: an ambit claim.

SeriousM 11y ago

That's clawed price anchoring tactic. Just make a high price offer and everything below that seems very cheap. Same with this bill, but I guess everyone knows that his bill can't change the reality but badly damage it.

Bluestrike2 11y ago

Don't underestimate their potential for ignorance and stupidity. I think the Feinstein bill represents a genuine attempt to push their solution through and not an attempt to force a false compromise later. For that strategy to work, they'd at least need a decent understanding of encryption in order to draft a proposal that was so over the top that the desired compromise would look palatable by comparison. Have you come across any statements from Feinstein, Burr, or their supporters to suggest that they have anything remotely close to that sort of technical understanding of the issues at stake? I sure as hell haven't. Their bill's text is actually pretty straight-forward when read in light of the level of ignorance on display in their interviews and the WSJ op-ed piece. In fact, the bill matches up really well with how they think encryption actually works: encryption is bad, so just make it effectively disappear. Unfortunately, the people who can best explain to them why they're wrong are the same people they've already written off as just another competing advocacy group instead of subject-matter experts. To be fair, that's pretty common in Washington. But the jadedness it creates is hugely problematic when they mischaracterize things. So instead of recognizing the community's pretty obvious credibility, they see the exact opposite.