3 ms·

I found it interesting that intelligence and terrorism investigations would no longer be covered by the bill. You read that right - what seems like the primary

I found it interesting that intelligence and terrorism investigations would no longer be covered by the bill. You read that right - what seems like the primary justification is no longer covered. As the article's author says, it seems particularly odd given that the bill’s sponsors are, after all, members of their respective chambers’ intelligence committees: A second change would eliminate section (B) under the bill’s definition of “court order,” which obligated recipients to comply with decryption orders issued for investigations related to “foreign intelligence, espionage, and terrorism.” The bill would then be strictly about law enforcement investigations into a variety of serious crimes, including federal drug crimes and their state equivalents. The article author makes a few guesses about why that would be: 1) A concession in a recurring jurisdictional turf war with the judiciary committees; I understand turf wars and concessions; though I don't quite understand how this change fits that description, I'll take his word for it. 2) Intelligence agencies have opposed back doors; and 3) major tech companies are worried about a high volume of requests from intelligence agencies. But what about this possibility: Intelligence agencies and/or tech companies don't want intelligence investigations to be codified and legalized, giving all parties laws that can be broken. Better to be in a legal gray area. (I don't know what already is codified or how much gray area there is.)

idlewords 10y ago
My take is that this law would force companies to structure their services in a way that made plaintext recoverable. And then intelligence agencies could continue to use National Security Letters and their special secret court to get the material they wanted. Or do their fancy hacking. In other words, a side-effect of the law is to outlaw NSA-hard security design, and that's enough for them.
Canada 10y ago
> I found it interesting that intelligence and terrorism investigations would no longer be covered by the bill. Hardly surprising though, counter terrorism was never the true motive.

idlewords 10y ago

My take is that this law would force companies to structure their services in a way that made plaintext recoverable. And then intelligence agencies could continue to use National Security Letters and their special secret court to get the material they wanted. Or do their fancy hacking. In other words, a side-effect of the law is to outlaw NSA-hard security design, and that's enough for them.

Canada 10y ago

> I found it interesting that intelligence and terrorism investigations would no longer be covered by the bill. Hardly surprising though, counter terrorism was never the true motive.