4 ms·
"Warrant-compatible encryption" requires a warrant, hence the name. The concern is that law enforcement can't decrypt things even if they have a warrant, so the
by vilhelm_s 7y ago
"Warrant-compatible encryption" requires a warrant, hence the name. The concern is that law enforcement can't decrypt things even if they have a warrant, so the encryption provides more privacy than is provided for by laws and constitutional rights.
See https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/04/burr-feinstein-proposal-simply-anti-security https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/04/burr-feinstein-proposa... for the previous bill.
- carapace 7y ago> The concern is that law enforcement can't decrypt things even if they have a warrant, The concern is that law enforcement apparently can't understand that "Warrant-compatible encryption" is an oxymoron. If encryption is a munition (if privacy is a weapon) then the 2nd Amendment is in play, eh? (edit: WWII, Turing, Bombe, Enigma.)
- rubinelli 7y agoDefinitely, after all encryption is a crucial tool for citizens to protect themselves from oppressive governments, so it fits the spirit of the law even better than it fits its letter.
- rhinoceraptor 7y ago> "Warrant-compatible encryption" requires a warrant It sure does, just like my front door requires a key :)
- vilhelm_s 7y agoI'm not sure what point you are making, but the entire argument in favor of these laws is to make encryption work more like front doors. In order to open the door the police require a warrant, but once they have that there are no technical issues which make it hard to get to door open, they can just call a locksmith.
- Vrondi 7y agoThey should stop expecting all of their job to be easy as a Google search, get off their rears, and do real detective work. If it isn't worth real-world work, then it's probably not worth eroding citizen rights over.