29 ms·

An even worse anti-encryption bill than EARN IT

• RcouF1uZ4gsC 6y ago
  This bill will be sold to the right as helping fight against foreign terrorists living in the US. It will be sold to the left as helping against the alt-right organizing and spreading hate. And it will be sold to everyone as helping stop child exploitation. In addition, there is already a lot going on in the country to keep the average person from focusing on this issue. It seems like allowing the government to spy on everyone is a pretty bipartisan agenda.
  • raincom 6y ago
    Funnily, that's how public reason or public justification is defended philosophically. Different groups can agree to some end, with contradictory reasonings.
  • gentleman11 6y ago
    The further we get from wwii, and the Cold War to some extent, the harder it is to remind the public how scary it is to live without freedoms. How do we remind them? Could China and Russia act as cautionary tales that voters would respond to? Putin jailing and murdering his political opposition, Chinese concentration camps for muslims - why do so many people assume it can’t happen here? Nazi germany wasnt some backwater nation, it was a strong, extremely cultured, advanced nation that was going through some very hard times. Germans didn’t like what happened - there were countless assassination attempts against hitler, but it was just eventually too late
    • anon9001 6y ago
      > why do so many people assume it can’t happen here? Is that actually the assumption? I'm pretty sure everyone already assumes that the government already has all of your messages, browsing history, transactions, etc, and they can come for you if they want. Between the massive surveillance state that already exists and the judicial miracle of "parallel construction", it's already very much a problem. The only thing left to do is scale up.
      • AnthonyMouse 6y ago
        There is something worse than gulags. Telescreens, watched by "AI". They can arrest you on trumped up charges, but it's not really feasible to do that to everybody, and extreme heavy-handedness promotes resistance. Once they reach inside your device, they don't have to murder or imprison you, they can just give you a little slap whenever you try to stray from the garden path. Let you know that they're watching so they don't even have to censor you, and can claim that they don't, because you censor yourself. Crimethink. Doubleplus ungood.
        • FerretFred 6y ago
          They can arrest you on trumped up charges, but it's not really feasible to do that to everybody No, but I would imagine there would soon be some way of removing your liberty and keep you under house arrest for a set period. Imagine if they made sure your banking and cards were frozen for the period to stop you going anywhere...
          • gentleman11 6y ago
            Or a social credit system that prevented you from using public transit
      • 082349872349872 6y ago
        A while ago there was a "north korean browser" that kept track of everything one did online. At the time people were saying how dystopic that was, but I'd always thought it must have been an elaborate troll, an in-your-face reminder of what could easily be done today, at multiple layers of the stack, with one's digital exhaust. (On the sibling thread: by my calculation at most 13% of the 1984 society had telescreens, so at roughly 60% global internet usage we're well ahead of Orwell for staring into Palantirs. Someone in the non-aligned movement ought to produce networking gear, so we aren't necessarily beholden to suppliers approved by one of the two[0] largest economies. Then again, seeing what happened to the former "leader of the third world" after the Cold War, maybe it's best not to draw attention to oneself in that way. "None of you has ever seen a dead donkey.") [0] China, US, would you all please reflect that "one to embody power the other to crave it" is a philosophy attributed to the "bad guys" in that particular mythos?
    • mamon 6y ago
      > Germans didn’t like what happened - there were countless assassination attempts against hitler, but it was just eventually too late. That myth has to die - there was no real opposition against Hitler for as long as he was successful. He was probably the most popular political leader of all the time. German people did not have a problem with his hatred against Jews, on the contrary, that's what gave him his popularity. It never was "Bad Nazis vs Good Germans" - Nazis and Germans were one and the same. Yes, initially, in 1933 Nazis did slauther some of their political opponents, but for the years after that they really didn't need to terrorize the nation. Gestapo in 1937 was just 7000 people, inlcuding secretaries and other support stuff, and that was enough to keep 60 million nation in check. Compare that to 200k members of STASI in communist East Germany after war. As for assasination attempts - if you look at Wikipedia list [0] you'll notice two things: 1. Most of them are pathetic, with zero chance of succeeding 2. None of them are attempted by common "good Germans" - some are by members of competing radical groups, some by citizens of countries conquered by Hitler, then, starting in 1940s there are attempts by generals that realize Germany is going to lose the war. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assassination_attempts_on_Adolf_Hitler https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assassination_attempts...
      • gentleman11 6y ago
        I’ll read more about it before I post the idea again, thanks for the correction
      • AnthonyMouse 6y ago
        > He was probably the most popular political leader of all the time. Worth noting that their first major win was in response to the stock market crash, but his popularity really only soared after they took power and imposed censorship. Free speech not such a virtue in Nazi Germany. Much easier to be popular when nobody is allowed to say anything against you.
        • raxxorrax 6y ago
          People hat Nazi spies within their own homes that made sure nobodY said anything wrong. Have a diary about such a couple. They made 200 people careful about what to say. Of course free speech was pretty much non-existent.
    • rakoo 6y ago
      Even you have forgotten that it's already happening in the US: you only need to look at the horrendous human conditions and the industrialization of the prison and justice system, which targets minorities for the pettiest offenses to be able to fill the prisons and make profits for their owners. Or look at the concentration camps at the border, where migrants are treated worse than we would treat any animal. Or look at the disproportionate treatment of minorities by police force: they are _scared_ of the police force, to the point the advice is to not trust the police. Is that something a citizen from a free country should face ? It _is_ happening already, and despite the few vocal people talking about it the news cycle is spinning so fast that it goes out of the discussion in a matter of days and people seem to forget it.
      • raxxorrax 6y ago
        You will always find that one social media post that will prolong any sentence.
    • throw47654 6y ago
      I would dare say it’s already happened here to a segment of our population. The War on Drugs, secret prisons, National Security Letters, extraordinary renditions, and “signature strikes.”
  • raxxorrax 6y ago
    Not from the US, but many on the left will see these capabilities as a counterweight to corporate data collection, others against the "dangers" of free thought. Very naive thought, but I think this will pass. Republicans mostly don't seem to know much of anything but certainly won't drop this opportunity. That said, I don't think it would end encryption though, since it is out of the hands of governments. Of course a lot of traffic will be compromised still and it would grant access to large data hoarders. edit: Of course that also means that Apple and MS OS aren't safe anymore.
  • mratsim 6y ago
    The 4 horsemen of the infocalypse: - terrorists, - drug dealers, - pedophiles, - organized crime. Quoting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_of_the_Infocalypse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_of_the_Infocalyp... Have a target "thing" you wish to stop, yet lack any moral, or practical reasons for doing so? 1. Pick a fear common to lots of people, something that will evoke a gut reaction: terrorists, pedophiles, serial killers. 2. Scream loudly to the media that "thing" is being used by perpetrators. (Don't worry if this is true, or common to all other things, or less common with "thing" than with other long established systems—payphones, paper mail, private hotel rooms, lack of bugs in all houses etc.) 3. Say that the only way to stop perpetrators is to close down "thing", or to regulate it to death, or to have laws forcing en masse tapability of all private communications on "thing". Don't worry if communicating on "thing" is a constitutionally protected right, if you have done a good job in choosing and publicising the horsemen in 2, no one will notice, they will be too busy clamouring for you to save them from the supposed evils.
    • foobar_ 6y ago
      All of them are sponsored by the government. I think the counteract is to have all meetings, phone calls by public officials open for scrutiny.
    • deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    • wizzwizz4 6y ago
      I've just realised that they don't just do this with tech stuff. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boys_Beware https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boys_Beware
    • chungus_khan 6y ago
      Everyone needs to remember: a constitution does nothing to protect your freedoms. It can serve as a rallying banner, but the only thing that will actually protect you is mass-will to enforce those freedoms. Simply having ideals on a piece of paper does nothing unless people actually fight for them, and those working against them aren't going to fight fair or say it out loud.
• choeger 6y ago
  With China on the one end going into full dystopian mode and the US aiming for a modern police state, I really wonder what the endgame is. Full fascism again?
  • gentleman11 6y ago
    Again? When was the USA or world fully fascist? Whose endgame?
    • deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    • mcv 6y ago
      Fascism did control quite a number of countries some 80 years ago. I think it's not unreasonable to say that full fascism was their endgame.
      • mjburgess 6y ago
        Fascism was a political situation in 1930s italy. I think the commentor is objecting to this new, rhetorical use of the term which essentially connects any "nostalgic, authoriatrian" impulse to a 1930s-style tyranny. The left's use of "fascism" today is much like the rights use of "socialism/communism".
        • grey-area 6y ago
          Just like the symbol of fasces was only used in ancient Rome and has no other meaning? Or the swastika, used in India as a symbol meaning wellbeing? Do you genuinely think symbolism and the meaning of words isn't plastic and contingent on context?
          • mjburgess 6y ago
            I think when people trade on the negative connotations of "fascism" and then turn around and go "oh i mean this..." they're being duplicitous and alarmist. The antifa lot essentially define fascism as an eternal set of human psychological impulses: nostalgia, in-group preference, desire for cultural homogenity, etc. These did not lead to Fascism, the "obviously bad thing" which they are being alarmist about. Fascism was a direct result of, and contingent upon, the mass death and poverty caused by WWI. Words do have meaning, and it is precisely the negative connotations of fascism that are being appealed to in the accusation. Absent these connotations, almost everyone is fascist some of the time.
• 0xy 6y ago
  This bill wouldn't receive enough support to pass considering the libertarian wing of the Republican Party right?
  • deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  • fiblye 6y ago
    Politicians on both sides increasingly care more about party loyalty than values.
  • NalNezumi 6y ago
    Isn't the libertarian wing considerably small part of the Republican party at the moment? On top of my head I can only recount 3 major figures. The rest are libertarians until they enter the game(get elected), then switch to being party acolytes.
    • adventured 6y ago
      The Liberty Caucus has eight members in the House. Who knows how these people will vote though and which ones can be pressured to vote for. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty_Caucus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty_Caucus
  • iron0013 6y ago
    “Libertarian” is just a word republicans use to try to get elected. No one who is anti-choice when it comes to what women do with their own bodies can really be Libertarian, and that’s basically all Republicans.
• ashton314 6y ago
  Is there a way to see exactly which senators vote for a bill? I’m writing my senators now about how bad this bill would be, and I want to see if they follow through.
  • cheschire 6y ago
    Yes! https://www.senate.gov/legislative/HowTo/how_to_votes.htm https://www.senate.gov/legislative/HowTo/how_to_votes.htm There's also third party sites, such as this one which offers email services. https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes
    • gpanders 6y ago
      govtrack.us offers RSS feeds for every legislator as well, so if you have an RSS reader already set up you can just add the feeds for your representatives (you don't even need to create an account on govtrack!)
• incompatible 6y ago
  Would this be for "online services" only, or would operating system vendors have to decrypt users' encrypted file systems on demand? Answer: according to the article "any device that has more than a gigabyte of storage and sells more than a million units a year could have to build a government-required backdoor if it is subject to five warrants or other requests, as would any operating system or communication system with more than a million active users."
  • a012 6y ago
    I briefly read the doc and it requires assistance to decrypt local device storage and remote storage. So it's a full spectrum demand for decrypting data.
    • incompatible 6y ago
      Going after systems that have over a million users would leave a pretty big loophole for niche vendors and open source. But with such a big precedent, those could easily be targeted later.
      • Johnnynator 6y ago
        > Going after systems that have over a million users would leave a pretty big loophole for niche vendors and open source. But with such a big precedent, those could easily be targeted later. Smaller just don't have to do it proactive, but can be required to do it later. > the Attorney General can simply command it to build one, using what’s called an “assistance capability directive.” (If it does already have that capability, the AG can use the directive to command it to maintain it.) That isn’t limited to the million-plus club; any provider can be served with such a directive. That is, the “big” providers have to proactively design for decryptability, and the “little guys” with less than a million U.S. users better gird their loins
      • bilegeek 6y ago
        For those, like you and me, who have been touting open-source as a beacon of hope: I'm sorry, we're done for. First, anything that has more than a gig of memory and sells over a million units must be engineered according to the government's whims. That is pretty much ANYTHING useful nowadays. Hardware will now spy on you. And even though there is old hardware, and theoretically zero-trust programming techniques out there, that won't matter because: They will go after open-source projects. Any single method alone wouldn't work, but if pushed all at once, they could smother us. File lawsuits against and harass not just maintainers, but contributors and possibly even users; force registrars to de-register domains, and search engines to forget links; have ISP's stop allowing Tor connections, or possibly even implement whitelists of all websites instead of blacklists of "bad" ones. Without secure computers, in today's world, there is no organized protest; there is no organized opposition; there is no truly effectual dissent, because the other side can see all and end it before it becomes an issue. And even then... gestures wildly. Constitutionality means jack without both belief and enforcement. We have neither; a public split and jaded, and a government empowered in the worst possible way. And even if this doesn't pass - and that is a horrifyingly small if - the very fact that this is even being proposed is evidence that the battle is close to being lost completely. There is no second chance in this chase, and we are going to trip and fall eventually. Though hope may be lost for us, may we retain hope that our descendants are at least somewhat at peace with the world we have given them.
• pensatoio 6y ago
  These bills terrify me. A lot of stuff happens in politics that’s frustrating, and much of it doesn’t catch my attention. There’s something about the pure ignorance that goes into breaking encryption that I can’t comprehend. I can understand when bills come through and the extreme differences in opinion are the result of different interpretations of facts and truth, but when it comes to encryption, there is no safe party. We will all suffer equally, every political party and apolitical individual alike, once these idiots make math illegal. Whatever your political affiliations may be, these are grounds for r/pcm level unity.
  • mtgx 6y ago
    It may be ignorance for most of the politicians that support the bill, but it's not ignorance for those creating and co-sponsoring the bill, but pure maliciousness. They want to give the government the power to read every single thing you say online, any consequences (or constitutionality) be damned. Feinstein, Burr, and others like them haven't been champions of mass surveillance powers extensions for the past 20 years out of "ignorance". They know exactly what they're doing. I still remember a video from the Senate floor showing how ruthlessly and in bad faith Feinstein argued FOR FISA 702 extension back in 2012 using lazy fearmongering about terrorists - the same kind of bad faith fearmongering used to allow the Iraq war, etc. It boggles my mind that Feinstein has remained a senator for so long in California, but I suspect it may have something to do with the electronic voting machines there. I mean, you could say she has more than enough friends that could help her out with that, especially if she continues doing what she's been doing in the Senate.
  • ngold 6y ago
    It's very simple. The powers that be just want to break encryption, but only for law enforcement use. Simple. Uggg.
    • nexuist 6y ago
      One of the long term consequence of legally dismantling our Constitution (which is the US equivalent to "company values", both in terms of how often they are invoked and by how often the same people ignore them) is that it dramatically reduces our soft power on the world stage. Right now China is engaging in textbook "secret war" with Hong Kong as well as a variety of other human rights abuses. It used to be that we, the U.S., could speak up, and have dozens of allies rush to our side on the principle that we are to be trusted. Consider how shoddy the evidence for justifying Iraq was, and the fact that most countries still chose to send their troops with ours. Our word used to mean something. But now? How can we hold a higher ground than China when our own police forces use the very same tactics against our own protesters? How can we accuse the other side of building concentration camps when we have our own? Backdooring encryption is just another attack on our basic freedoms. It is crazy that at a time we should be touting our values as proof they are objectively better compared to our competitors', we are also trying to take them apart and bring us down to the same level as our competitors. It's like a vast cargo ship encountering a dinghy, and the captain tells the dinghy "you need to change your construction materials, you're shooting yourself in the foot by making poor choices" while his crewmen are hard at work drilling holes into the windows below deck.
• personjerry 6y ago
  A more digestible way to read the article: https://thinkerapp.com/shared/RichArchetypalBettong https://thinkerapp.com/shared/RichArchetypalBettong Context: I'm building an app to help the intellectually curious like me to be better able to approach dry, long, and intimidating articles. The link is a highlighted summary generated with this app, and if you have any feedback I'd love to hear it!
  • valvar 6y ago
    Are you really intellectually curious if you avoid articles that are too long or 'intimidating' (what does that even mean)? Perhaps you meant 'timid', not 'curious'.
    • personjerry 6y ago
      The articles are of interest to me, but as I open 20 tabs or so the prospect of diving into thick paragraphs on each link seems tedious and daunting, so I put them off and never actually come around to them. I found bookmarking apps would just allow me to delay them indefinitely, so that didn't work either, so I built this to get the approachable inverse pyramid structure entry into any article.[0] [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_pyramid_(journalism) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_pyramid_(journalism)
      • mratsim 6y ago
        I prefer in-depth article that don't skip over "details" and I expect that from an university publication. Otherwise I would read my Twitter feed.
• fulafel 6y ago
  What are the effects of this, if passed, on the rest of the world using Office 365, Facebook or AWS? It might be impossible to reconcile with some regulation in eg the EU.
  • Cthulhu_ 6y ago
    I hope (fingers crossed) that the encryption laws will simply not apply to the EU. I mean most US companies operate via an intermediate company hosted in e.g. Ireland or the Netherlands already, so I reckon legally they can disregard these bills. Of course, if the US government starts to offer money for data, they may budge anyways. I'm fairly sure MOST data can freely be shared with the US, it's just government data and higher level company data that isn't allowed to cross the borders.
    • hedora 6y ago
      https://www.linklaters.com/en/insights/blogs/digilinks/2019/september/us-cloud-act-and-gdpr-is-the-cloud-still-safe https://www.linklaters.com/en/insights/blogs/digilinks/2019/... Tl;dr: For most data, the cloud vendor is basically forced to violate either the cloud act or the gpdr. The gpdr has a bunch of fuzzy carve outs for requests involving people in danger or the “public interest”. My guess is that those will be expanded over time to force the data to be handed over, regardless. If the data isn’t “personal information” (financial records aren’t, for example), GPDR doesn’t apply and the warrant must be served. I think this means that, because they could hypothetically receive a warrant they have to serve, the Ireland/EU intermediary (or the US company that provides them with the software/hardware) will have to backdoor the encryption. I am not a lawyer, and I haven’t even read any of these bills. I’m just piecing together summaries. I don’t think anyone really knows how the three bills will interact in practice.
  • michaelmrose 6y ago
    Logically it means that most of planet earth abandons our technologies and our companies. Locking out their best and brightest simultaneously give them an even better chance to exploit this opportunity.
• austincheney 6y ago
  The solution to policies like this is serverless or point-to-point systems. As an application publisher you cannot be held liable or obligated towards that which you do not possess and are, by design, not capable of possessing. As an example consider copyright law and BitTorrent. BitTorrent provides a software application and protocol but not servers or services, so the BitTorrent software is never liable for the copyright violations of content that makes use of its protocol.
  • EGreg 6y ago
    The web browsers and operating systems are our trusted computing base. If those have backdoors all else is moot.
    • austincheney 6y ago
      These anti encryption policies are almost always about online services though. Government is generally not so concerned with encryption in the OS because people rarely encrypt their data at rest and even when they do it is still stored data at rest that can be brute forced in time. If you are using a web browser for a typical online service any backdoor is less concerning than simply going straight to the service provider where all things converge. If a web browser is used in a serverless context, just for localhost user interaction, it can rely on other aspects of the OS to transmit data thereby circumventing any browser backdoor.
      • nikitaga 6y ago
        The article says that this bill applies to operating systems just as well. It's doesn't matter what's typical or reasonable, the hostile actors pushing this and the EARN IT act don't care. Let's skip the denial stage. This is not a technical problem, it's a political problem and needs political solutions. Whatever technical solution you come up with will simply be made illegal if anyone but the nerdy 0.0001% will end up using it. We are rushing full speed towards a police state. We have to stop.
        • 6y ago
• jeffparsons 6y ago
  Computer criminals (especially the commercial variety) and foreign intelligence agents must be drooling right about now. If something like this becomes law, it's only a matter of time until a mass-breach gives, e.g., China or Russia the dirty laundry of thousands of politicians and business leaders in one fell swoop. I don't think I need to spell out what that would mean for what's left of democracy in the USA. I'm curious to know if anyone has any insight from the inside: do the particular congresscritters drafting these bills genuinely not understand the damage that would be done if this sort of drivel passed into law, or do they just not care?
  • naringas 6y ago
    but why do you think that 3 letters such as the FBI, DEA, or the NSA or CIA will stop using strong encryption? do you really think that the DHS will just break its own encryption because of some laws?
    • big_youth 6y ago
      The thing is all those three letter agency’s make heavy use of civilian contractors and commercial products. There is no doubt they are using some bigco vpn or other software that can/will eventually be compromised.
      • jsjohnst 6y ago
        > The thing is all those three letter agency’s make heavy use of civilian contractors and commercial products. Using Ed Snowden’s autobiography as a point of reference, I’d say the IS agencies have probably 25% of the staff or higher as contractors, so definitely heavy use.
    • cipher_314159 6y ago
      They won't stop using strong encryption. The big national security issue is not a break of government encryption; it's a break on civilian encryption. Consider a foreign adversary with the ability to break encryption used by banks, credit card companies, large retail facilities, hospitals, etc. There are a few things that seem tempting-- think "steal from the banks", but a lot of that is unlikely to work, anyway. Banks and wire transfer systems have auditing and verification measures in place that would make it difficult to pull this off successfully. Credit card companies and retailers would have a serious issue with reissuing cards, etc. What would turn things upside-down is the LOSS OF FAITH in these systems and the economic, social, and practical effects. The Russians would be all to happy to exploit this. Suppose somebody recovers the necessary keys to send out fake-but-authenticated buy/sell orders on the NYSE, NASDAQ, or even commodities exchanges, with the specific intent of causing havoc with algorithmic trading, and causes a crash. Suppose somebody is able to break into JP Morgan Chase and reveal private records, transfer information, and the session keys used to decrypt them. Suppose somebody is able to modify a single prescription in West Bumfuck, Georgia, cause their death, and show off that they can do it again. In all of these cases, you would see an immediate collapse of trust in important institutions. If the attackers make clear that their ability to fuck things up is the result of backdoored crypto, there would likely be spillover from one institution to the others-- "I can't even trust my pharmacy; how the hell can I trust my bank?!" That collapse of trust would result in severe, immediate, and possibly unrecoverable damage to entire industries. That would likely destroy a lot of wealth as stocks take a giant shit. Could somebody DO that? With backdoored cryptio, I'd say it's likely, even inevitable. Backdoored crypto either has to have a mathematical weakness inserted somewhere into the algorithm itself (in which case I would expect adversarial equivalents of the NSA to hire fucktons of mathematicians and tell them find and exploit said backdoor), or you have to do some form of key escrow (in which case the master keys used to protect session keys will be SUPER high priority for attack, including technical attacks and the famous "give the right disgruntled IT worker a bunch of money" attack). Strong, un-tampered-with encryption is SERIOUSLY vital for national security. Yes, some companies already have issues with this due to shit security practice, but those can be treated as isolated incidents. If it becomes clear that EVERYBODY is fucked, I would expect to see the market crash worse than it has during the pandemic. EARN-IT is NOT OKAY by a long shot, but as others have pointed out, this is an attempt to make EARN-IT look like a responsible, reasonable compromise. It isn't a reasonable compromise, but Congress is basically a giant bag of assholes, s we're probably screwed.
• noodlesUK 6y ago
  What’s the situation when two (ostensibly friendly) superpowers, the US and EU, have totally mutually incompatible laws regarding something totally transnational? I’m not asking rhetorically, I’m asking legally, what is a company to do if they want to do business in both locations?
  • Mirioron 6y ago
    My guess is that they have to compartmentalize the operation. Essentially, it'll have to be like region-locking in video games, where you make different changes to the product for each region.
  • kd5bjo 6y ago
    Depending on the nature of the conflict, it might not be possible at all. Countries generally reserve the right to control both what crosses and happens within their borders- that’s more or less the definiton of sovereignty. If two countries have mutually-exclusive regulations regarding some goods, there isn’t a legal trade in those goods between them.
    • mratsim 6y ago
      I guess it's time for github.eu
  • mnw21cam 6y ago
    That basically almost already happened with the Microsoft case a while back. The US government asked Microsoft US to give it some data that was held by a subsidiary (call it Microsoft EU) in Ireland. It went quite high up in the US courts, because it was illegal for Microsoft US to not hand over the data, but also illegal for Microsoft EU to hand over the data. But basically because the company was split along jurisdiction lines, there was the possibility for Microsoft US to tell Microsoft EU to hand it the data, Microsoft EU to say no, and Microsoft US to say to the US government "Well, we tried."
  • Nasrudith 6y ago
    I can think of the German Cococola as one precident even if it is more local. Embargoes forced the German branch to split and develop their own independent supply chains. They remerged when possible. Effectively the solution has been an effective hard split into two companies one for each set of laws. They certainly have to sever monetary and organizational ties to not locally be engaged in conspiracy. Without coordination or assistance they have no responsibility to tbeir illegal twin abroad. They do what they can get away with locally and relying upon their counterpart's enforcement failures abroad. It may be illegal but if they are in another superpower's territory entirely they are protected. Being fully lawful to both at once was precluded so they effectively become mirror universe versions of themselves lawful in one and scofflaw in the other. Other less shady alternative approaches include withdrawing from one superpower and shifting their business entirely or simply deciding to dissolve themselves entirely and distribute their assets to the shareholders.
• Fradow 6y ago
  Being in the EU, I really wonder how this is going to play out if this bill comes to pass. It's pretty clear this bill is incompatible with the GDPR, which specifically mandates using state of the art encryption when appropriate (and a backdoored encryption is certainly NOT state of the art). The 2 laws would be fundamentally incompatible, which means we would probably see different services based on geolocation from the big companies (GDPR applies to EU residents, not citizens, so there is no overlap), but this means small players will have to choose between EU and US or take a legal risk. From a risk perspective, the US have an exception for under 1 million users, while the EU has nothing of the sort. Which means it would, in theory, be less risky to start in the EU, expand in the US, and when you reach the 1 million users bar, separate EU from US operations (which has obviously a lot of issues, how do you handle a user moving from one place to the other, or users interacting accross boundaries?). Let's hope this won't be the trigger to have several continental/national "internet" instances, but this is definitely going to contribute to a split.
  • wizzwizz4 6y ago
    We're going to have the "international edition", with 256-bit encryption, and the "US edition" with 40-bit encryption. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/40-bit_encryption https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/40-bit_encryption
  • hedora 6y ago
    The 1 million user exception doesn’t apply if the government tells you that you need a backdoor. Also, the CLOUD ACT is already incompatible with the GPDR, so cloud vendors are already in a situation where they’re forced to decide which law to break if they receive a warrant.
• Hnrobert42 6y ago
  Perhaps conservatives will find compelling a comparison to the second amendment. When crypto was outlawed, only outlaws will have crypto. The letter I sent to my senators is as follows: I care deeply about the safety and security of my fellow Americans. I understand the challenges that strong encryption poses for law enforcement. I don’t want the terrorists and pederasts to win. Yet, I strongly oppose Senate bill 4051, LAEDA. Consider giving a copy of your house keys the police just in case they need to come in without you knowing. Boy, I hope no one ever decides to steal all those keys at once. I hope no one guarding the keys ever develops an opioid addiction and decides to sell just a few keys. I hope China and Russia don’t get curious about what you are discussing with your colleagues and decide it would just be easiest to raid the key pantry. Meanwhile, the real bad guys will just continue using existing, strong crypto. When crypto is outlawed, only outlaws will have crypto. As a strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment, you understand that it is every person’s right to defend themselves against the evil forces in the world as well as protect against a potentially tyrannical government. Just because some criminals use guns for evil doesn’t mean we should curtail the rights of the majority who uses them for lawful defense. Please don’t be fooled that LAED or EARNIT leave strong crypto intact until a warrant is issued. No. These acts force everyone, law abiding or not, to install a trigger lock the government can switch on remotely. Do we really trust the next administration not abuse that right? Do we really trust big business that much? Personally, I prefer to stand my ground. I have done nothing wrong. I will not hand over my rights to defend myself.
  • C19is20 6y ago
    Tldr
  • michaelmrose 6y ago
    Conservatives don't care about rights and they certainly don't care about your values. They literally just want your money and if you don't have enough to get them re-elected they don't give a damn.
    • hedora 6y ago
      s/conservatives/moderates/ The Democratic and Republican party establishments have been eroding our rights for years. Populist libertarians (1) and progressives have been fighting it for just as long. (1) “the government has no right to levy an income tax” types, not “the courts have no right to inconvenience my monopoly” types.
• zelphirkalt 6y ago
  > Incentivizes technical innovation What a load of bs. Because those tech-freaks always find a way right? Innovation will simply appear without any doing on our part. We can just create non-sense bills and laws and they will make it work. They will magically find a way. These imbeciles do not even understand the simplest things about encryption, but want to make laws for it. Ridiculous. I would laugh right now, if it was not such a serious issue. Well, I am not in the US, but it will affect people world wide, who use services hosted in the US and next things happening EU comes around the corner with an equally stupid idea and it will hit me directly. Time for EFF again to save this world from idiotic leadership. You have my support.
  • mratsim 6y ago
    This would be in breach of various privacy laws in the EU. Companies have been sued for using weak encryption (cough plaintext passwords).
    • zelphirkalt 6y ago
      Of course, yes, but does it stop any of these politicians to come up with stupid ideas? I don't think so. Do we need more tests of what is OK in front of the European courts? 'cause once these politicians are sufficiently "incentivized" they wont stop pushing "their" ideas.
  • vms20591 6y ago
    Problem is, other nations might follow suit & come with up with similar laws for their own means or persuasion from the US.
• DyslexicAtheist 6y ago
  who would be he people in congress backing this bill? is there a list?
  • proverbialbunny 6y ago
    It says at the top of the article >On Tuesday, June 23, Senators Graham (R-SC), Cotton (R-AR), and Blackburn (R-TN) introduced a bill that is a full-frontal nuclear assault on encryption in the United States. As a general rule of thumb with how US politics have been going, this bill will probably be split down party line.
    • DyslexicAtheist 6y ago
      thanks, I've seen those but wasn't sure if that meant this is the complete list of backers or just those drafting it. considering the current climate surrounding the protests my guess is it sadly has good momentum for a pass.
    • coldcode 6y ago
      Graham has some compromat on him (he used to hate Trump and suddenly became his biggest supporter over night), Cotton was the guy who wanted all protesters killed, I have no clue on Blackburn. But this bill has zero chance of passing; it's merely yet another case of political grandstanding. Lots of things get introduced that can never pass.
• tomklein 6y ago
  Democratic nations are drifting more and more away from the wills of their people. How can this be changed?
  • ancarda 6y ago
    I think the majority of people would prefer if encryption weren't a thing - as they believe it's primarily or exclusively used by criminals to evade law enforcement. If most people want X, and our elected officials are working on making X a reality, then isn't democracy working just fine?
  • lvs 6y ago
    Or the wills of their peoples are drifting away from democratic principles.
  • coldcode 6y ago
    Vote like your life depended on the outcome.
  • bbarnett 6y ago
    Are they? Or, are the viewpoints of those in Westwrn nations more diverse? In the "old days", opinion was often formed by highly controlled sources, compared to internet standards. TV, radio, newspapers, magazines were created entirely from within (for example) the US, with strong editorial control. Now, one person with a divergent view can spread said view nation wide, regardless of from where they hail. So, I contend that views are more divergent now, more varied. And with that, comes a greater difficulty in crafting laws which "almost all" agree with. How do you support the will of the people, when there is no collective will?
    • tomklein 6y ago
      That’s an interesting point of view I didn’t think about yet. But as long as there is no collective will, should there be a law on that at all?
  • jbotz 6y ago
    Perhaps more accurate: some nations are drifting away from democracy. In particular the US can't really be considered a full democracy anymore, and the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) which publishes a "democracy index" every year, has recently downgraded the US to "flawed democracy". I think that this could happen in the US shows that democracy as currently implemented in most countries still has significant design flaws. We need a democracy 2.0 that's more stable, less easily corrupted, and helps educate the people so that their "will" is more rational. Personally I still believe that democracy is the only civilized option, or rather some manifestation of the principles of the "Open Society" as described by Karl Popper is the only option. But an Open Society is an iterative process which needs continuous improvement by definition.
• cabaalis 6y ago
  I'm from TN. It's no surprise to me that they also target DNS over HTTPS. Marsha Blackburn has long been in the pocket of large internet providers. She successfully stopped a large city here in TN from expanding their own successful municipal broadband.
• tomcooks 6y ago
  Please stop voting dumbasses in the US, it affects everyone living in countries who have commercial agreements with then
  • StreamBright 6y ago
    You might want to check other countries too.
  • el_don_almighty 6y ago
    If you don't like the idiots in Congress... then run for office. Engage in the civic process. Why aren't there more nerds and programmers in Congress? We should be there
    • alkonaut 6y ago
      We are. We just aren't americans, so we are counting on Americans to vote (or engage in the process). Thanks in advance!
    • TulliusCicero 6y ago
      People won't vote for them. Everyone complains about how politicians behave, but the truth is that they won't vote for you unless you behave like a politician. Voters are just as two-faced as the representatives they complain about.
      • megous 6y ago
        Not true. We have a pirate party that has like 20% of the mandates in the capital city leadership (won the last election), and 11% in the parliament. Currently it polls around 17% for the parilamentary elections (second place) https://www.ceske-volby.cz/2020/06/14/preference-kantar-cz-cerven-2020/ https://www.ceske-volby.cz/2020/06/14/preference-kantar-cz-c...
        • Nasrudith 6y ago
          You also have a parliamentary system and a non-first past the poll system which is more open to coalition building to claim a majority. While it is well and good for you here it isn't viable under the political "meta" established by the rules.
• Keverw 6y ago
  This bill seems like something out of 1984... I kinda wonder if any big tech companies will fight back like Apple since they push backed on issues before... Other tech companies maybe too, but I think some tech companies are fine with this stuff even if it creates extra burdens because its for example easier for some of these huge companies on the stock market to go over everything than some smaller tech startups. Also really makes me less of a fan of the two party system... but then again some people don't want to due to busy or just boring to look over every candidates... Like maybe you are a Republican in Tennessee and then for all the other candidates you check Blackburn since she's part of your party... Seems like the actual president actions get more attention, more people have opinions on Obama or Trump than their own representatives or governor. I think it'd be interesting if people could vote on issues more directly, but wonder if that'd be open up to fraud... Like how some candidates are against mail-in votes... I'd think crypto and some other things might be stronger than a signature. Speaking of signatures, I voted in one of the state elections mail-in and the local county election commission rejected my ballot because of my signature and got a letter back after it's too late to go to the polls... I have really bad hand writings and I hate signing for things. It's annoying lol... Like I used the mobile app for Subway once since they had a deal and you have to sign the little paper receipt print out, kinda like scribble and be done with it since not as important as other signatures though. While other mobile apps, nothing to sign. Plus They don't even teach cursive writing in schools anymore. So I think crypto and maybe some proof of being a live person using tech might actually help. Kinda one of my own concerns about some areas doing mail-in only for COVID... I wonder if you lived in maybe an area that's mostly democrat and voted republican or vise verses if your signature is more likely to be rejected. I wonder what the process for that is, do they keep copies of people signatures when they registered to vote (DMV will register you too, so maybe from state ID or License) or from their last ballot or when they requested an absentee ballot maybe more likely? Then I also feel like some of these candidates and other elected officials live in their own little bubble, rich, overpaid and out of touch with society.
• schaefer 6y ago
  I've read the bill of rights. i have a right to be secure in my papers and affects. okay, this bill emphasizes that police need a warrant, but glosses over the bit about actual security. administrative controls aren't security. That's why we haven't outlawed locks on the front door...
  • el_don_almighty 6y ago
    lockpickinglawyer on youtube should quickly dispel any sense of security you have with the lock on your house. It is literally ZERO
    • bbarnett 6y ago
      Entering an unlocked house, in many common law jurisdictions, is tresspass at best. Picking a lock falls into break and enter, regardless of the name of the charge. Windows, and even walls offer little security in modern houses too! I can literally punch my way through vinyl siding, with chipboard under that, through to drywall.
      • vulcan01 6y ago
        This. Locks give you legal protection, not physical protection.
      • dragonwriter 6y ago
        > Entering an unlocked house, in many common law jurisdictions, is tresspass at best. False, opening or door window is sufficient for the breaking part of burglary at common law, locks.are irrelevant. If locks are relevant, it's not because of common law.
        • bbarnett 6y ago
          There's no universal 'common law'. Each jurisdiction has its own, diverged "branch" of common-law, each with its own peculiarities. Primarily, based upon its history. And as the legislative branch passes laws, they effect the power of, modify the scope of, or render inert many such judicial decisions. This is why I said "many common law jurisdictions', not just 'common law'. One vital part of common law, is intent. A door with a lock on it? And you pick it / disable it? It is going to be exceptionally difficult to prove benign intent here. An unlocked door? Well... Are your friends 'breaking and entering' by opening the door and walking in? Again, intent here... Did you knock, and "thought you heard something"? Again, intent. There have been many court cases, but as an example, for a while, in Ontario, Canada, it was common for police to knock at the door, and simply enter saying "Oh, I knocked.. but no one heard me." I kid you not. But let's take a step back here, and give you an example as to why this becomes more difficult with an unlocked door. Part of the issue here is, many houses have a covered, 'cold room' prior to the house proper. Yet, this is still part of the house. It has a roof and walls, a door. It is simply part of the house. In many colder climates, you enter this area. This is fully expected. You're now sheltered, but it isn't heated. When the owner opens the "door proper", blowing snow and wind won't enter their house. Ergo, to knock, you must approach the "real door" of the house, inside this room, and knock. It is also not immediately clear if the "very outside door" you are accessing, is a cold room, or the actual door of the house. How do you discover one way or the other? Why you open the door, and enter! Intent is primary here. Entry into an unlocked house does not prove intent, as there is no 'forced entry'. One thing ; in Canada, the police lay charges. A person need not even make a complaint, for the police to act. Nor does a person insisting that the police not charge someone, indicate this will happen! An example here ; the police discover assault of some form. They only need evidence, not willingness to 'charge'. Now take this legal position, and assign it to people entering houses. Your friend enters your house, as he always does, without even knocking. According to you, that's 'break and enter', yes? What differentiates here? Why, intent of course! Intent is primary, and a locked door creates a very strong validation of intent. An unlocked? Zero validation.
• zulgan 6y ago
  reading those bills makes me feel quite hopeless, considering Gell-Mann Amnesia[1]: Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray’s case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward—reversing cause and effect. I call these the “wet streets cause rain” stories. Paper’s full of them. In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know. It is horrible to think the same thing probably exists in politics, and I cant even imagine what goes through in fields I don't understand. [1]https://www.epsilontheory.com/gell-mann-amnesia/ https://www.epsilontheory.com/gell-mann-amnesia/
  • second--shift 6y ago
    Have an upvote for an ET allusion. The blog has some interesting philosophy about collective "philosophical" inertia - everything is meta-stable, until it isn't. I can't help but think and feel that we are at or nearing a maxima change - we are pushing over the edge of our current local maxima, and many things about modern society will change all at once.
• alkonaut 6y ago
  > (R-SC)...(R-AR)...(R-TN) It's funny how you can read just that and know that the bill is going to be absurdly bad. Not even just bad in the philosophical/political sense but actually just bad as in not understanding the problem space, or not even formulated clearly or coherently.
  • cabaalis 6y ago
    Are you saying that Rs or people from southern states are incapable of critical and analytical thinking?
    • cure 6y ago
      Perhaps just that that combination does not have the best track record in that regard. Their war on science, etc.
    • ragnese 6y ago
      Yes. (Just saw an opportunity for a joke and took it)
    • alkonaut 6y ago
      Not sure, maybe it's the combination.
    • saon 6y ago
      As a native born floridian, the claim that southern republicans are not good at critical and analytical thinking seems true to me. Surely they're out there, but I haven't met them yet, and I've met plenty of conservative southerners. If your voting base prefers the blood of christ over a facemask to protect from coronavirus, you probably aren't writing bills based on, uh, informed analysis of relevant data.
  • throwaway0a5e 6y ago
    Toss enough coins and you'll get a good streak of heads going. There's plenty of D's who just love to come up with bills that make citizens more vulnerable to the government.
• sixtram 6y ago
  how does something like this affect password managers like 1-password?
• WinstonSmith84 6y ago
  When thinking, it's ironic the concerns the US is having with Huawei and Chinese potentially spying on us. Americans are not even trying anymore to pretend they don't do the same, they just want exclusivity without having to bother wasting resources decrypting communications...
• sitkack 6y ago
  Do we need an amendment to the constitution? We can't keep fighting these fights. Eventually they will win.
  • SamuelAdams 6y ago
    Yes, I'm surprised there is no "right to privacy" spelled out in clear terms. Sounds like that would be a wonderful thing to add directly to the Constitution.
    • ipnon 6y ago
      The 4th amendment is supposed to guarantee this right. The Senators are old men who don't understand technology, so they believe that the protections that applied to letters at the time of the constitution don't apply to the medium that has replaced letters, namely email and messaging.
      • 54thr 6y ago
        Please... These people know exactly what they are doing. The internet is a lot of things, and one of those things is a tool for mass surveillance. It's always, always been about power and money.
        • ipnon 6y ago
          You are right, they have no excuse.
    • jsjohnst 6y ago
      > I'm surprised there is no "right to privacy" spelled out in clear terms. The problem is, there is no definition of the word “privacy” in the context of “right to privacy” that a majority can agree on. I highly doubt even the niche audience of HN could agree on what they feel is private or not. I think the EU took a decent shortcut around that debate with “right to be forgotten”.
      • 6y ago
• throw1234651234 6y ago
  How do we practically and legally fight this without becoming an activist? This is one of the few issues I actually care about. This doesn't seem to be a topic on presidential candidate radars.
• xedrac 6y ago
  As someone who typically votes conservative, this is the kind of ignorance that makes me seriously reconsider my stances. This would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater, and go a long way toward emulating China. No thank you! Time to double down on encryption efforts and Tor usage.
  • api 6y ago
    There is plenty of room for a sane, intelligent conservative position in our political landscape and discourse. Where is it? There are over a dozen congressional candidates today (all on the R side AFAIK) who espouse or at least dog whistle to the Qanon cult. Imagine if PETA, Earth First!, and the most unreasonable histrionic "social justice warrior" types took over the Democratic Party. That's where the Republican Party is going if it isn't there already. Where's Eisenhower or even Reagan?
    • deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
  • hedora 6y ago
    I hate to break it to you, but if this bill bothers you, then you’re best bet is to vote for the progressives. Welcome to the left wing, comrade. :-) Over the years, I’ve watched most of my conservative friends defect to the democrats as the Republican party morphed from “small (but efficient) government” to starting the War on Science and War on the Climate, not to mention all the useless wars against the Middle East, etc. At the same time, the Democratic party also veered to the right, and I’ve watched my liberal friends (and now, some of those conservative defectors) move to the progressive part of the democratic party. It’s not that people’s opinions have changed, it’s that the parties have sold out their core values to appease big donors. Prior generations in the US became more conservative as they aged. I don’t see that happening with my generation. Between that and demographic shifts, the Republican party is representing a rapidly shrinking minority of the population. I just wish the senate wasn’t so skewed toward conservative states and against city dwellers. 42 votes are controlled by a group of people the size of California. Worse, the senate gets to appoint federal judges, so a minority of the US is electing the people that have exclusive control over court appointments (they simply refuse to appoint judges when there is a Democrat in the white house) and they’ve packed them with radicals.
• sailfast 6y ago
  Crypto is classified as an armament for export control. I’m keeping mine under the second amendment, since the folks who wrote this bill seem to care about that one. As an aside: does that mean US DoD will get a back door as well? As a secure provider with over 1M users that required encryption at rest and in transit I think they should be the first to give up the keys to law enforcement.
  • LanceH 6y ago
    Congress should be the first to lose the things they vote to restrict. They should lose it for at least a year before a bill is allowed to pass by simple majority.
    • sailfast 6y ago
      Yeah the TL;DR: on this is “Bill Barr (or any AG) could read all of your emails without a warrant if you vote for this.” I know they would legally require a warrant to read them, maybe, but he’d have the access without it. Not a fun thought to go back to Hoover-style DoJ practices.
      • WrtCdEvrydy 6y ago
        > “Bill Barr (or a Democrat AG) could read all of your emails without a warrant if you vote for this. That would fix it.
  • Ivoah 6y ago
    https://xkcd.com/504/ https://xkcd.com/504/
    • sailfast 6y ago
      There’s one for everything.
• api 6y ago
  I wonder how the 4chan crowd feels about helping "meme Trump into office?"
  • superkuh 6y ago
    If you think who is currently president matters one bit when it comes to passing bills increasing federal spying and power then you haven't been paying attention.
  • joey_bob 6y ago
    Who are you quoting?
• frpzzd 6y ago
  Would this have any ramifications on something like the Tor project?
• lunchbreak 6y ago
  A Twitter thread [1] from Matthew Green in this bill. Essentially he says that this bill is a dead on arrival bill which is designed to make EARN IT look like a fair compromise. And we better not fall for it [1] https://twitter.com/matthew_d_green/status/1275976084023119874 https://twitter.com/matthew_d_green/status/12759760840231198...
  • bitxbitxbitcoin 6y ago
    We (HNers) might not fall for it but the proven technologically illiterate Representatives and their staff just might. This is why citizen's lobbying is so important. If the lawmakers are willfully ignorant - or in this case willfully arrogant about attacking encryption - the only thing that will get them to vote the right way is to hear from enough real constituents that the lawmakers feel like their reelection will be in jeapordy if they do vote the wrong way.
    • cs702 6y ago
      I agree with lunchbreak's comment that this new bill seems "engineered" to make EARN IT look like a reasonable compromise. FYI, there's a long history of politicians attempting to regulate mathematical truths they don't understand. My favorite example is probably the infamous Indiana Pi Bill, via which local politicians wanted to regulate the value of Pi to be exactly 3.2, according a "proof" published by some crank. The politicians were even hoping they could get people outside Indiana to pay a royalty for the "proof." No, I'm not making this up: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Indiana_Pi_Bill https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Indiana_Pi_Bill https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_Pi_Bill https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_Pi_Bill
      • non-entity 6y ago
        I... what? I dont even understand the point. Surely if politicians want to scam people for money there are better ways.
      • ardy42 6y ago
        > My favorite example is probably the infamous Indiana Pi Bill, via which local politicians wanted to regulate the value of Pi to be exactly 3.2, according a "proof" published by some crank. Honestly, that seems to be a bit of a distortion. What I've read about that makes it sound like some state legislators were fooled for a little while by a crank, which caused a dumb bill to advance a little before being killed. No law was ever passed, and the motivation appears to be less of trying to force nature to submit to law and more trying to secure rights to (what they thought) was advanced technology. Even the "regulate the value of Pi" aspect is a (popular) overstatement, since (IIRC) that value was only implied by the bill.
• fosco 6y ago
  What can we do about this? if it is not this one there will be another one after it. I feel like the longer we wait the more likely this will get passed.
  • hedora 6y ago
    A constitutional “right to privacy” amendment would help, but it would need to be carefully worded to avoid the loopholes that have been established around unreasonable search and seizure. Short of that, donate to progressive candidates, and tell them that this is your hot-button issue.
• bitxbitxbitcoin 6y ago
  I'm glad this post hasn't been removed because it's about a proposed bill as opposed to a new law :).
• deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
• cannedslime 6y ago
  How are you even going to enforce anti-encryption legislation? Deep packet inspection?
• jimmar 6y ago
  Have any smart people in tech come up with a solution that would satisfy the 4th amendment while preserving secure communications? It seems that to lawmakers, tech people are proclaiming that they've done such a good job building secure systems that the 4th amendment cannot apply to them. Personally, I'd rather let some criminals go free than to break encryption. I don't see lawmakers being willing to make the same trade-off.
  • dragonwriter 6y ago
    > Have any smart people in tech come up with a solution that would satisfy the 4th amendment while preserving secure communications? Sure. The 4th Amendment has nothing against anything that preserves secure communications. > It seems that to lawmakers, tech people are proclaiming that they've done such a good job building secure systems that the 4th amendment cannot apply to them. No, they are proclaiming that getting dangerous people is so important that the privacy rights like those in the Fourth Amendment shouldn't apply, which tendency is exactly why we have the Fourth Amendment.
  • mindslight 6y ago
    All secure encryption is compatible with the 4th amendment. The 4th amendment is a restriction on the government, not a requirement for citizens to structure their personal affairs so we can be easily searched.
  • hedora 6y ago
    The US is more of a surveillance state now than it ever has been before. Police have unprecedented surveillance capabilities, and still would even if everyone used unbreakable encryption. Credit cards, surveillance cameras, cell network tracking logs, targeted advertising, and the rise of social media have all but killed privacy on their own. The police already have access to all that data, and more. The idea that we need to add more surveillance capabilities to protect historical law enforcement capabilities is laughable.
  • chungus_khan 6y ago
    > Personally, I'd rather let some criminals go free than to break encryption. I don't see lawmakers being willing to make the same trade-off. That's not even the real trade-off. Serious criminals who were already actively using end-to-end encrypted services will continue using them or services like them, regardless of whether they have permission. The US can try to block and shut them down as much as they like, but ultimately there's no stopping them. The only kind of criminals this would affect are the ones that were already not taking security precautions. This is a massive hit to privacy and digital security with no actual meaningful upside.
• javajosh 6y ago
  I was under the impression that a certain GOP Presidential candidate served the same purpose, and that did not turn out well.
  • lowdose 6y ago
    Could you tell me more about that?
    • SV_BubbleTime 6y ago
      He means Trump. As seen in the leaked Podesta emails (Hillary’s campaign manager that was phished and has a password of “Pa$$w0rd” or such), Hillary Co asked their media contacts to put emphasis on Trump. To give him more coverage than the others running. They literally called him their “pied piper” candidate. They were so confident they could beat Trump that they helped prop him up. How Hillary skated by with many people not knowing or not caring that in more ways than one she is responsible for the president they hate so much, I have no idea. Edit: you know the emails are on Wikileaks HN, the chain starts with “Friday Strategy”
      • banads 6y ago
        Can someone explain why this is being heavily downvoted? Was something they said false?
        • brianlweiner 6y ago
          Probably the ludicrous notion that somehow Hillary Clinton is to blame for electing Donald Trump rather than the millions of people who voted for him despite overwhelming evidence of his lack of fitness for the office.
          • AnimalMuppet 6y ago
            Millions of people also judged Hillary as being unfit for office. She was a horribly flawed candidate. (Not saying that Trump wasn't...) So, yes, Hillary in fact does deserve some of the blame. She was probably the only candidate the Democrats could have run who would have lost to Trump.
• L_226 6y ago
  This seems quite similar to the Australian Assistance and Access Bill [0], which also compels companies to implement new solutions that enable decryption services. This bill also makes it illegal for a compelled person to communicate this order, even to their own company. Seems like the old trope of Australia being the squishy testbed for shitty US laws is true after all. [0] - https://www.homeaffairs.gov.au/help-and-support/how-to-engage-us/consultations/the-assistance-and-access-bill-2018 https://www.homeaffairs.gov.au/help-and-support/how-to-engag...
• 83uy2982983r80 6y ago
  They are pushing the overton window of public opinion by introducing extreme legislation which is so obviously bad it is certainly rejected. Then they incrementally introduce "a fair compromise" and in either case: YOU LOSE!
• dhx 6y ago
  Encryption is only one overrepresented technological technique to achieve communication security. al-Qaeda reportedly favoured communicating in the clear with obfuscated messages, attempting to make their communications become a needle in a haystack of mundaneness that no one would raise an eyebrow to[1]. In World War 2, the United States hired native American speakers to communicate in the clear, knowing that the Nazis would have no comprehension of the languages spoken[2]. Use of obscure languages, local dialects and local euphemisms has been widely used by drug cartels[3], parties to violent conflicts, etc. Criminals have been known to join and communicate via obscure online multiplayer games under the assumption that no one has gone to the effort of reverse engineering a proprietary game protocol and the developer hasn't gone to the effort of implementing recording of or monitoring of in-game activities that could be used for communication, including painting words on a surface in-game, naming objects in-game, etc. Online multiplayer games also provide a plausible reason (cover story) for two people to communicate with each other and yet claim they don't know each other in real life--a feature most encrypted messaging protocols can't guarantee. Encryption backdoors are unlikely to be a concern to adversaries we should be most worried about. History shows they have tended to assume that backdoors exist and that use of encryption tends to draw unwanted attention. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obfuscation#Secure_communication https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obfuscation#Secure_communicati... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_talker https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_talker [3] https://publicintelligence.net/dea-drug-slang-code-words-2018/ https://publicintelligence.net/dea-drug-slang-code-words-201...
  • moloch 6y ago
    None of your cited examples are "secure," they're the very definition of "security by obscurity," which is to say insecure. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerckhoffs%27s_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerckhoffs%27s_principle
• srmatto 6y ago
  Until we get encryption as a constitutional amendment we can probably expect to fight these types of laws perennially.
• BiggsHoson 6y ago
  After this passes, imagine a perfect storm scenario where a widespread crisis--real, manufactured, or blown out of proportion and deemed an imminent threat by the powers that be--affords governments the cover to force everyone to stay at home and completely rely on the Internet in efforts to maintain some kind of sanity during "these challenging times". Oh, wait... From there, it is not hard to imagine that compliance with such government lockdowns could be deemed critical for "national security". Suddenly, decryption surveillance on large numbers of the population is done in response to a situation seemingly not even imagined (as far as we can tell) in the creation of this bill. They will not have to publicly ask for people to snitch on their neighbors--they will already know. "But," some will say, "it is to keep us all safe." Replace a health crisis in the above scenario with...I don't know...maybe your desire to join a local protest over something. When the LAED Act passes (I am pessimistically sure that "if" does not apply here) poetic justice would be for those "Republican" senators to be the first targets of state-sponsored hackers decimating the personal fortunes they have coincidentally amassed while holding office. To be honest, I am surprised that there is not a provision in the bill to somehow exempt Congress, just like there is with most other garbage legislation they say is best for us.
• MrWiffles 6y ago
  We should be prosecuting senators who bring such blatant violations of the Bill of Rights forward in the first place.
• pico303 6y ago
  Has anyone tried asking politicians who are all for this kind of legislation if they've thought about how it might affect them? I'm assuming they're not using government networks for private communications with friends, family, donors, mistresses, etc. Someone might suggest to them that once a bill like this passes, those silly "LEO-only" limitations will be hacked pretty quickly and the entire world will be reading their messages too.
• happythomist 6y ago
  Contrary to what some people are implying, support for mandatory decryption is not evidence of technological illiteracy. From the perspective of these lawmakers, encrypted storage is like a safe. You have the right to store records in a safe to keep them away from prying eyes, but law enforcement has the right to order you to unlock that safe if they have a warrant. You have the same right to store those same records on an encrypted device, but law enforcement has the same right to order you to decrypt that device if they have a warrant. Since people will sometimes refuse to decrypt a device, even when ordered to do so by a court, these lawmakers want to require OEMs and service providers to maintain control of the keys when they encrypt information on a user's behalf so as to increase the chances that lawful decryption can take place. Is this a bad policy? Quite possibly. It has certain risks and makes certain tradeoffs, like any other policy. But it is arrogant to assume that anyone who supports it must be ignorant of how encryption works.
  • stx 6y ago
    The difference is that for the government to come into my house and force me to open my safe: 1) I will both know about it. 2) government will need a warrant. In the case of my digital data that might be stored on google (or some other third party) I may never know that the government asked google to decrypt my data for them. In the past companies have done so without a warrant. Maybe the contents of this bill does not work this way. I don't know.
    • deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
  • kinghajj 6y ago
    With the safe analogy, I swear there's precedent that, if the security is a physical key, then a court can compel the owner to produce it. But if the safe uses a combination, the court cannot compel its divulgence, since that would violate the fifth amendment protections against being forced to testify against oneself. Encryption "keys", and the passwords from which they are commonly derived, are much more akin to combinations than to physical keys.
• stx 6y ago
  The thing I always wonder about something like the government having the power to force people to decrypt data is what happens if the person claims they forgot their key. I could very much see this happening to me if I was arrested and my computers taken away only to months later be asked to unlock them. Also what happens if the person used Rubber Hose cryptography. They could give up a key and the government gets some data but it would be impossible to know if they gave up all the keys. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubber-hose_cryptanalysis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubber-hose_cryptanalysis
• 303brad 6y ago
  I really enjoyed reading this: https://theneutral.com/2020/06/25/republican-senators-propose-lawful-access-to-encrypted-data-act/ https://theneutral.com/2020/06/25/republican-senators-propos...
• frankzen 6y ago
  When Phil Zimmerman created PGP one of his stated use cases was protection of speech in totalitarian regimes. Well... looks like we're approaching that use case. Encryption is permissionless by design.
  • frankzen 6y ago
    Also, I think begging politicians to see it any other way is a waste of time. Widespread disobedience and resistance is the only way to knock it down. Make it cost a lot to enforce.
• stjohnswarts 6y ago
  This is why I donate a hundred dollars each to the ACLU and EFF every year around Christmas time. It's not much but if everyone did it they'd be able to find this stuff a lot better. Once our rights to liberty and privacy are taken by the government it's 10X as hard to get them back.