4 ms·

Nevada Looks to Temporarily Restrain Meta from Using End-to-End Encryption

63 points by moose44 3y ago

olliej 3y ago
"temporarily" No, they just want the ability to spy without warrants, and the first step in that is making sure that spying is an option.
- JohnMakin 3y ago
  > No, they just want the ability to spy without warrants, They want the ability to easier spy without warrants. They already spy without warrants through numerous mechanisms such as buying "private" data from 3rd party vendors, or by simply asking companies to provide the info themselves.
LorenPechtel 3y ago
[flagged]
- yellowapple 3y ago
  Technological incompetence is a bipartisan issue, unfortunately.
- racked 3y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_on_mass_surveillance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_on_mass_surveilla...
- hn_acker 3y ago
  Democrats give in to "think of the children" fallacies too. Attorney General Aaron D. Ford is a Democrat. Nevada's Office of the Attorney General is the party bringing the featured anti-encryption lawsuit.
- egberts1 3y ago
  Missed. Look for WHO is bring in the lawsuit.
- mplewis 3y ago
  Look at who’s sponsoring KOSA.
yellowapple 3y ago
> Apparently Nevada has a newish state law (from 2022) that makes it an additional crime to engage in “unlawful use of encryption.” The claim that the law is "newish" / "from 2022" is flat-out wrong. The law in question is from 1999: https://www.leg.state.nv.us/Session/70th1999/bills/SB/SB485_EN.pdf https://www.leg.state.nv.us/Session/70th1999/bills/SB/SB485_... And was most recently amended in 2001: https://www.leg.state.nv.us/Session/71st2001/bills/SB/SB551_EN.pdf https://www.leg.state.nv.us/Session/71st2001/bills/SB/SB551_... I'm guessing the author saw the "2022" in the Justia page he linked and jumped to the conclusion of "oh this is when the legislation was introduced" without noticing the "Go to previous versions of this statute" drop-down or the fact that it literally says "(Added to NRS by 1999, 2704; A 2001, 2789)" at the bottom of the main text. Had the author followed the advice in the disclaimer to "[p]lease check official sources", he would've even seen (in said official source: https://www.leg.state.nv.us/NRS/NRS-205.html#NRS205Sec486 https://www.leg.state.nv.us/NRS/NRS-205.html#NRS205Sec486) the hyperlinks to the exact additions from 1999 (https://www.leg.state.nv.us/Statutes/70th/Stats199916.html#Stats199916page2704 https://www.leg.state.nv.us/Statutes/70th/Stats199916.html#S...) and 2001 (https://www.leg.state.nv.us/Statutes/71st/Stats200118.html#Stats200118page2789 https://www.leg.state.nv.us/Statutes/71st/Stats200118.html#S...). As much as I agree with the article's premise and find it exceedingly disappointing that my state would pull typical "only pedophiles and terrorists need end-to-end encryption" shenanigans, it makes it unreasonably difficult to take said article seriously when the author gets basic stuff like this wrong; it makes me wonder what else the author got completely wrong.

63 points by moose44 3y ago

"temporarily" No, they just want the ability to spy without warrants, and the first step in that is making sure that spying is an option.

JohnMakin 3y ago
> No, they just want the ability to spy without warrants, They want the ability to easier spy without warrants. They already spy without warrants through numerous mechanisms such as buying "private" data from 3rd party vendors, or by simply asking companies to provide the info themselves.

LorenPechtel 3y ago

[flagged]

yellowapple 3y ago
Technological incompetence is a bipartisan issue, unfortunately.
racked 3y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_on_mass_surveillance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_on_mass_surveilla...
hn_acker 3y ago
Democrats give in to "think of the children" fallacies too. Attorney General Aaron D. Ford is a Democrat. Nevada's Office of the Attorney General is the party bringing the featured anti-encryption lawsuit.
egberts1 3y ago
Missed. Look for WHO is bring in the lawsuit.
mplewis 3y ago
Look at who’s sponsoring KOSA.

yellowapple 3y ago

> Apparently Nevada has a newish state law (from 2022) that makes it an additional crime to engage in “unlawful use of encryption.” The claim that the law is "newish" / "from 2022" is flat-out wrong. The law in question is from 1999: https://www.leg.state.nv.us/Session/70th1999/bills/SB/SB485_EN.pdf https://www.leg.state.nv.us/Session/70th1999/bills/SB/SB485_... And was most recently amended in 2001: https://www.leg.state.nv.us/Session/71st2001/bills/SB/SB551_EN.pdf https://www.leg.state.nv.us/Session/71st2001/bills/SB/SB551_... I'm guessing the author saw the "2022" in the Justia page he linked and jumped to the conclusion of "oh this is when the legislation was introduced" without noticing the "Go to previous versions of this statute" drop-down or the fact that it literally says "(Added to NRS by 1999, 2704; A 2001, 2789)" at the bottom of the main text. Had the author followed the advice in the disclaimer to "[p]lease check official sources", he would've even seen (in said official source: https://www.leg.state.nv.us/NRS/NRS-205.html#NRS205Sec486 https://www.leg.state.nv.us/NRS/NRS-205.html#NRS205Sec486) the hyperlinks to the exact additions from 1999 (https://www.leg.state.nv.us/Statutes/70th/Stats199916.html#Stats199916page2704 https://www.leg.state.nv.us/Statutes/70th/Stats199916.html#S...) and 2001 (https://www.leg.state.nv.us/Statutes/71st/Stats200118.html#Stats200118page2789 https://www.leg.state.nv.us/Statutes/71st/Stats200118.html#S...). As much as I agree with the article's premise and find it exceedingly disappointing that my state would pull typical "only pedophiles and terrorists need end-to-end encryption" shenanigans, it makes it unreasonably difficult to take said article seriously when the author gets basic stuff like this wrong; it makes me wonder what else the author got completely wrong.