11 ms·

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 ignor

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.
  - pietroglyph 6y ago
    > 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? But we’ve had things like this for a long time. The police have acted like they do for generations, we had concentration camps for Japanese people during World War II, and we’ve always done a variety of other reprehensible things (propping up brutal dictators, destroying native civilizations, institutional racism of every possible flavor.) Frankly, I’m shocked that our word ever meant something.
    - redis_mlc 6y ago
      > we had concentration camps for Japanese people during World War II I study WW2, and it's important to be factual. The correct term is internment camps. Japanese-Americans usually lost their property, but the purpose was to locate them in central locations, not to re-educate or liquidate them, as our enemies did to the Allies. For that time in history, it could be argued that the decision made sense. Japanese subs did shell the US mainland, and Japanese-Americans in Hawaii did help a Japanese aircrew try to escape after Pearl Harbor. Japan planned to return to Hawaii after Midway to occupy Hawaii. I think using the term "moral high ground" is not helpful for a number of reasons. However, the US did rebuild the world economy after WW2, mostly to prevent it from becoming aligned with the Soviet Union. Most of the world's national borders are descended from WW2. As leading historian Dr. Victor Davis Hanson says, "[WW2 was German and Japanese soldiers machine-gunning unarmed civilians by the tens of millions.]"
      - throwanem 6y ago
        Victor Davis Hanson says a lot of things, including that Iraq II was a good idea - he was a minor but still fairly significant public relations voice in the neoconservative bloc that pushed that war into existence, to the enormous detriment of US interests in the Middle East and worldwide. As a classicist he's tolerable, if no more than that; in any century where the years count up instead of down, the man seems entirely at sea.
- Spooky23 6y ago
  It’s not that simple. They want certain concessions from tech companies and others. Ie “It would be a shame if something were to happen to your business model here.”
desmondw 6y ago
I think ironically a bill like this passing would lead to more decentralization of services -- making their goals of monitoring information even harder.
- lvs 6y ago
  Probably need to move toward maximizing decentralization regardless.
  - SV_BubbleTime 6y ago
    Agreed. These are bad bills - but - perhaps they further the eventual necessity of a decentralized Internet?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- _tw9j 6y ago
  They don't want to track people who will use those decentralized services. Simple as that. They want control over majority. Nothing else. Any legal business will be required to do what law requires them and it will affect every citizen. I have no hope given the stupidity of my country to do something against acts like [1] personal data protection law or the decryption act. US going towards that road only means it's easier to justify our country and many others to go even higher. Soon a mandatory camera inside house for legal citizen. 1] https://carnegieindia.org/2020/03/09/what-is-in-india-s-sweeping-personal-data-protection-bill-pub-80985 https://carnegieindia.org/2020/03/09/what-is-in-india-s-swee...
  - mratsim 6y ago
    Banks will love that. As would EU, South American and Asian businesses, they would VPN to another continent VPN to finally have nested encryption for key stakeholders communication.
  - dilettantism 6y ago
    Absolutely. Anybody who wants to skirt this can simply use an instance of any number of open source end-to-end encrypted apps and servers. This is not for catching sophisticated criminals.
giancarlostoro 6y ago
Whats worst is these should all be entirely illegal. Its literally warrantless searching.
- stilley2 6y ago
  I'm not in favor of the bill, but a warrant is still required (at least for domestic stuff).
  - uptown 6y ago
    Which is why the U.S. government routes a copy of the traffic through servers hosted in a friendly ally's country, then do whatever you want with it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYNXVgYhPOc&feature=emb_logo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYNXVgYhPOc&feature=emb_logo General Alexander was very precise in his choice of words when he repeatedly stated "in the United States". What went unasked was whether these operations take-place against U.S. citizens outside of the borders of the United States.
    - monocasa 6y ago
      And even then he was lying. They had tapped google's inter datacenter connections for instance.
      - uptown 6y ago
        "not wittingly" /s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsmo0hUWJ08 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsmo0hUWJ08
    - chungus_khan 6y ago
      Plus even when they do need a warrant, it doesn't do much good when there is literally a closed-access secret court specifically for handling surveillance requests which very rarely denies said requests and has a known history of enabling abuse.
  - jjoonathan 6y ago
mattmanser 6y ago
What's more terrifying is that this is something you understand. Think of all the bills you don't understand that are just as bad!
- dkdk8283 6y ago
  Such as FOSTA/SESTA
- ratacat 6y ago
  I love you for this comment
- pensatoio 6y ago
  I agree. If I had the ability to make one change in government, it would be that bills must be focused on a single topic and resolution. I don't want my members of my government voting to pass bad bills which compromised their integrity with a million small inclusions.
flyGuyOnTheSly 6y ago
r/pcm?
- kinghajj 6y ago
  r/PoliticalCompassMemes, a subreddit that's been gaining popularity recently. (I only discovered it oh, maybe 2-3 months ago? Wouldn't be surprised if the quarantine had a big impact.)
  - pensatoio 6y ago
    Joe Rogan recently released an episode with the comedian Andrew Schultz which I found very relevant. So many of us share common ground. It's the extremes that push us to be more extreme. r/pcm has been a rare instance of unity, blunt kindness, and understanding in these times, and I greatly appreciate it.

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.
- pietroglyph 6y ago
  > 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? But we’ve had things like this for a long time. The police have acted like they do for generations, we had concentration camps for Japanese people during World War II, and we’ve always done a variety of other reprehensible things (propping up brutal dictators, destroying native civilizations, institutional racism of every possible flavor.) Frankly, I’m shocked that our word ever meant something.
  - redis_mlc 6y ago
    > we had concentration camps for Japanese people during World War II I study WW2, and it's important to be factual. The correct term is internment camps. Japanese-Americans usually lost their property, but the purpose was to locate them in central locations, not to re-educate or liquidate them, as our enemies did to the Allies. For that time in history, it could be argued that the decision made sense. Japanese subs did shell the US mainland, and Japanese-Americans in Hawaii did help a Japanese aircrew try to escape after Pearl Harbor. Japan planned to return to Hawaii after Midway to occupy Hawaii. I think using the term "moral high ground" is not helpful for a number of reasons. However, the US did rebuild the world economy after WW2, mostly to prevent it from becoming aligned with the Soviet Union. Most of the world's national borders are descended from WW2. As leading historian Dr. Victor Davis Hanson says, "[WW2 was German and Japanese soldiers machine-gunning unarmed civilians by the tens of millions.]"
    - throwanem 6y ago
      Victor Davis Hanson says a lot of things, including that Iraq II was a good idea - he was a minor but still fairly significant public relations voice in the neoconservative bloc that pushed that war into existence, to the enormous detriment of US interests in the Middle East and worldwide. As a classicist he's tolerable, if no more than that; in any century where the years count up instead of down, the man seems entirely at sea.
Spooky23 6y ago
It’s not that simple. They want certain concessions from tech companies and others. Ie “It would be a shame if something were to happen to your business model here.”

desmondw 6y ago

I think ironically a bill like this passing would lead to more decentralization of services -- making their goals of monitoring information even harder.

lvs 6y ago
Probably need to move toward maximizing decentralization regardless.
- SV_BubbleTime 6y ago
  Agreed. These are bad bills - but - perhaps they further the eventual necessity of a decentralized Internet?
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
_tw9j 6y ago
They don't want to track people who will use those decentralized services. Simple as that. They want control over majority. Nothing else. Any legal business will be required to do what law requires them and it will affect every citizen. I have no hope given the stupidity of my country to do something against acts like [1] personal data protection law or the decryption act. US going towards that road only means it's easier to justify our country and many others to go even higher. Soon a mandatory camera inside house for legal citizen. 1] https://carnegieindia.org/2020/03/09/what-is-in-india-s-sweeping-personal-data-protection-bill-pub-80985 https://carnegieindia.org/2020/03/09/what-is-in-india-s-swee...
- mratsim 6y ago
  Banks will love that. As would EU, South American and Asian businesses, they would VPN to another continent VPN to finally have nested encryption for key stakeholders communication.
- dilettantism 6y ago
  Absolutely. Anybody who wants to skirt this can simply use an instance of any number of open source end-to-end encrypted apps and servers. This is not for catching sophisticated criminals.

giancarlostoro 6y ago

Whats worst is these should all be entirely illegal. Its literally warrantless searching.

stilley2 6y ago
I'm not in favor of the bill, but a warrant is still required (at least for domestic stuff).
- uptown 6y ago
  Which is why the U.S. government routes a copy of the traffic through servers hosted in a friendly ally's country, then do whatever you want with it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYNXVgYhPOc&feature=emb_logo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYNXVgYhPOc&feature=emb_logo General Alexander was very precise in his choice of words when he repeatedly stated "in the United States". What went unasked was whether these operations take-place against U.S. citizens outside of the borders of the United States.
  - monocasa 6y ago
    And even then he was lying. They had tapped google's inter datacenter connections for instance.
    - uptown 6y ago
      "not wittingly" /s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsmo0hUWJ08 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsmo0hUWJ08
  - chungus_khan 6y ago
    Plus even when they do need a warrant, it doesn't do much good when there is literally a closed-access secret court specifically for handling surveillance requests which very rarely denies said requests and has a known history of enabling abuse.
- jjoonathan 6y ago

mattmanser 6y ago

What's more terrifying is that this is something you understand. Think of all the bills you don't understand that are just as bad!

dkdk8283 6y ago
Such as FOSTA/SESTA
ratacat 6y ago
I love you for this comment
pensatoio 6y ago
I agree. If I had the ability to make one change in government, it would be that bills must be focused on a single topic and resolution. I don't want my members of my government voting to pass bad bills which compromised their integrity with a million small inclusions.

flyGuyOnTheSly 6y ago

r/pcm?

kinghajj 6y ago
r/PoliticalCompassMemes, a subreddit that's been gaining popularity recently. (I only discovered it oh, maybe 2-3 months ago? Wouldn't be surprised if the quarantine had a big impact.)
- pensatoio 6y ago
  Joe Rogan recently released an episode with the comedian Andrew Schultz which I found very relevant. So many of us share common ground. It's the extremes that push us to be more extreme. r/pcm has been a rare instance of unity, blunt kindness, and understanding in these times, and I greatly appreciate it.