Ron Wyden Introduces Bill To Ban FBI 'Backdoors' In Tech Products 109
An anonymous reader sends this report from The Verge: Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) is trying to proactively block FBI head James Comey's request for new rules that make tapping into devices easier. The Secure Data Act would ban agencies from making manufacturers alter their products to allow easier surveillance or search, something Comey has said is necessary as encryption becomes more common and more sophisticated. "Strong encryption and sound computer security is the best way to keep Americans' data safe from hackers and foreign threats," said Wyden in a statement. "It is the best way to protect our constitutional rights at a time when a person's whole life can often be found on his or her smartphone."
This is bothersome (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This is bothersome (Score:5, Interesting)
That's true as far as the NSA goes, but this is about the FBI, which was set up from the beginning to spy on Americans.
Re:This is bothersome (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
I think the word you are looking for is "COMPLETELY"
Re:This is bothersome (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, the FBI was originally formed (and with good reason, I might want to add) to act as a federal (as compared to local) police force, with the duty to enforce federal law, especially where local forces cannot due to limits in their jurisdiction. It was supposed to close a loophole where a criminal can simply move to another state to escape prosecution.
Only with Hoover it really started to suck.
Re: (Score:2)
So that's where the company's name comes from...
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Huh. I can't really think of any other governments int he past century that have been known to massively spy on and intimidate their entire population - even to the point of being afraid to express themselves - can you? Hmm...
Also, they didn't give a shit about the constitution; why the fuck would they give a shit about another law?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Now what do you think will happen to technology exports once laws pass that require the implementation of back doors in supposedly secure hardware and software. It will be no problem at all to force class action law suites in foreign countries to block the importation of these products where they infringe upon their constitutional rights.
Re: (Score:1)
(d)uh.... /sarcasm
Re: (Score:2)
I can't think of any other democracy who have gone this route though.
Then you're either not trying hard enough or not considering large parts of the Western first world to be democratic. They're pretty much all at it, with or without the meaningful consent or support of their populations. The US just has a bigger budget and a higher profile.
Re: (Score:2)
The NSA was always supposed to protect the status quo against people and organizations that would threaten it.
It still does that.
What changed is that the people and organizations that might want to overthrow government are no longer limited to people and organizations abroad.
Re: (Score:2)
What gives you the idea that you're dealing with a democracy? Because of the political entertainment show every other year? C'mon, be realistic. In a democracy, you first and foremost actually have a choice. Now, it may be the distance that makes it hard to see, but I cannot really see any differences between the two parties you have in the US. They are, for every relevant case, the same. Tell me one important issue they do not agree on. And please don't come along with petty crap like abortion or gay marri
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
This is something Eben Moglen discusses in his Freedom in the Cloud [softwarefreedom.org] talks, which I strongly recommend.
Any other agencies or just the FBI... (Score:1)
...because I can think of one that's going to do it nomatter WHAT the law says...
Re:Any other agencies or just the FBI... (Score:4, Insightful)
Try Rome around 100-75 B.C. It fits better with the current political climate of corruption, and the erosion of public virtue. The democratic republic was/is dying in all but name. Rome was no banana republic, and the U.S. is not much like one either.
Re:Any other agencies or just the FBI... (Score:5, Insightful)
The similarities between the Roman Empire and the US are actually stunning to behold.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm reminded of this every time a city I'm living in wants to spend another $30 million on another stadium. At least we've graduated to non-lethal violence for public entertainment.
Re: (Score:2)
You're not watching a lot of TV, are you? Just because one is fake and the other one disguised as news doesn't mean we're not into bloody entertainment anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
Fair point (and no, I haven't seen broadcast/cable TV in 10 years).
Re: (Score:2)
You haven't missed much.
You know, I still remember a time when news were, you know, news. Information. About what happened in the world. Stuff that matters. Today they're just thinly veiled commentary and opinion pieces supposed to broadcast a message to make you think and believe a certain way, spliced with blatant advertising that really insults the intellect of the reader by pretending he's stupid enough not to notice it.
I really wonder sometimes why I still read it. Let alone comment on it...
How long until he gets a phone call... (Score:5, Insightful)
"You know, that's a nice life you have; drop the bill and none of your illegal activities come out."
All congresscritters are criminals, so this won't take long to kill. :(
You can't vote out the Gestapo.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course you can. Worst case scenario you have to cast a lot of lead ballots, starting with the upper management and working your way down.
Re: (Score:2)
You derped all over yourself there. Your claim doesn't even survive the headline, you don't need to have read the summary. ;)
"Make" or "convince" (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:"Make" or "convince" (Score:5, Insightful)
All big corporations are on the same side as the "agencies"
Not on this issue. Corporations are happy to help if it boosts their profits, or at least doesn't hurt them. But once these backdoors went public, the backlash has meant fewer sales for American tech. That hurts profits. If this bill fails, as is likely, more and more people will buy non-American tech, from countries they feel are more trustworthy, like China.
Re: (Score:2)
That's why the US intelligence agencies will always know what you're doing. You believe in security theater, home-made variety.
Re: (Score:2)
Not to mention that an FBI backdoor might be exploited by a hacker and then this company's tech products will look horribly inferior to their competitor who didn't put in the back doors.
Re: (Score:1)
Who are you going to sue? The federal government must explicitly allow you to sue them. Guess what, they don't do that very often.
Re: (Score:2)
You're reading something into the layman's explanation that isn't in the bill. They aren't allowed to do it with a different word, either.
Laws aren't that flexible. People make the mistake of thinking so because they don't realize that when lawyers are arguing about the meaning of a word, it is a technical jargon word that laypeople don't understand. A law never means a different thing just based on what word you use to describe your behavior.
Mister Potato Head! (Score:2)
Mister Potato Head! (Score:1)
Back doors are not a secret!
Yeah, but you're giving away our best tricks!
The killer bees are already out of the jar (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:The killer bees are already out of the jar (Score:5, Interesting)
Why only FBI? (Score:5, Interesting)
All of this would not be necessary, if existing laws would be enforced the way they were intended to. What is here not to understand " ... secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects".
The moment you start slicing and dicing and qualifying, the next moment another interpretation will be drafted that allows to bypass any new law.
The truth is people were spied all the times, but when it became easier to do so due to the technologies and the scale of spying became difficult to hide, then the new laws were carved out, "while the freedoms are protected".
Key lesson: calling the the laws in a manner opposite to what it does.
Patriot act is not patriotic.
Affordable care is not affordable to most of the working people.
FBI backdoor ban, will put more resources on another secret agency which is not banned.
Why FBI, why DHS, why not all of them?
Re:Why only FBI? (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, the bill text [senate.gov] says "no agency may mandate...", so it ought to cover the DHS and NSA as well.
However, since most (all?) government-induced vulnerabilities so far have been "suggested", rather than "mandated", I'm unsure how effective this bill would be.
Re: (Score:2)
This is a lot more likely. The relationship with Israel is more nuanced. They would be used sometimes, but they're not a default go-to. Canada is a dear friend all the time in any country, though.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
All of this would not be necessary, if existing laws would be enforced the way they were intended to. What is here not to understand " ... secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects".
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The FBI's problem is that, soon, even warrants won't be sufficient to pry open the encryption protecting consumer level devices.
Re: (Score:1)
Actually, since the devices are made in China, there will be backdoors aplenty... but not backdoors accessible to the FBI.
Re: (Score:3)
If they have a warrant, they'll have no problem with a consumer device. "We have a warrant. Decrypt your phone or we arrest you". This is similiar to "We have a search warrant. Tell your guards to step aside, and open your safe for us. Or we arrest you."
The warrant means that you have to stand aside while they perform the indicated search or seizure. It doesn't mean you have to help them. (You might choose to open the safe rather than see it destroyed when they're going to get into it one way or the other. That doesn't really apply to encrypted data.) If they want your assistance in gathering information then they need a subpoena, not a warrant, and that comes with a different set of restrictions and penalties for non-compliance.
Re: (Score:2)
Sane people will then unlock their phone, decrypt e-mail or whatever.
Sane people don't keep secrets lying around where they can be found, like in their phone or e-mail or whatever. You delete that shit when you're done with it. Then it doesn't matter if you give up your passwords. There's nothing to find. The cleverest criminals aren't breaking any laws, so they can hide in plain sight — behind nothing but public ignorance.
Re: (Score:2)
The FBI's problem is that, soon, even warrants won't be sufficient to pry open the encryption protecting consumer level devices.
Yep, that's the FBI's problem. Tough cookies. If FBI agents want an easy job, they should become software developers or managers or something. Law enforcement has these restrictions put upon them to make it difficult. Not because we support crime, but because it's the agents are in a position of power and need to be kept under control.
Re: (Score:3)
Warrants are already insufficient to pry open safes and encrypted drives.
The warrant gets them the safe or encrypted drive. Opening it? That is what subpoenas are for.
If they don't have a case, they don't really need the data. If they have a case, they can get the data. Nothing changes for cases where they are following the law and getting warrants.
This only inconveniences dragnet searches that are probably illegal anyways, or would be if judges had the courage to allow the victim standing to challenge.
Re: (Score:1)
All of this would not be necessary, if existing laws would be enforced the way they were intended to. What is here not to understand " ... secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects".
The problem is that they cease to be your papers and effects if you give them to someone else. That letter you sent to your girlfriend - she's free to pass it on to the police or to post it on imagur if she likes. That request you sent to Comcast for a route to www.alquaeda.ir - they are free to give it to the NSA if they like.
Generally, one imagines that your girlfriend is not going to consent to a FBI request for all you past communications, because her privacy is at risk, too. But what motivates Time
Re: (Score:2)
All of this would not be necessary, if existing laws would be enforced the way they were intended to. What is here not to understand " ... secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects".
The biggest problem with the Bill of Rights (and almost every other law intended to restrict governmental employees) is that it doesn't include any civil or criminal penalties. Think about it.
Read through the code of any state or the federal government and you'll see stuff like this (from the TN code, random clicking):
56-26-128. Violations -- Penalty.
Any person, firm, partnership or corporation willfully violating any provision of 56-26-125 or 56-26-126 shall be liable for the civil penal
It will never pass and not for the reasons (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Very wise question. Is it because the amendments are made by committees?
IMHO, this is one of the problems with the US system. The constitution grants the houses the ability to govern themselves. So while a bill requires a simple majority to pass, there are lots of other votes that must happen before the bill can even be voted upon. There are rules static when a bill can be introduced, how amendments are added, how it gets out of committee, and how it comes to the floor for vote. So in the end, a senato
Re: (Score:1)
It isn't intended to pass.
If he really gave a rat's ass about it, he wouldn't have waited till he was in a lame duck Senate to propose this.
This is all about getting some good press for himself and possibly the Dems in general, and bad press for the Reps coming in next month who'll actually have to vote on this bill. "See?!? WE wanted to fix this horrible thing, but those EEEEVVIIILLL Republicans stopped us!!!!!!"
Be a terrible shame if there were enough Tea Party types (or sympathizers, at least) in th
Re: (Score:1)
If he really gave a rat's ass about it, he wouldn't have waited till he was in a lame duck Senate to propose this.
This, in spades.
If he really gave a rat's ass, he wouldn't have sat back before the NSA/Snowden revelations saying "you don't know the half of it". He was on the Senate committee that oversees such things and was fully briefed on it, and did nothing to stop it.
This is all about getting some good press for himself and possibly the Dems in general,
That's what Wyden is all about. I live in his state. I've seen him work and how he runs campaigns.
Re: (Score:3)
If he really gave a rat's ass about it, he wouldn't have waited till he was in a lame duck Senate to propose this.
Lame duck sessions are the ideal time to get controversial bills passed. Lame ducks can vote on anything they want without giving a shit about constituents, contributions, or their caucus. They can vote their conscience, such as it is, without any concerns of political liability. He might get enough lame duck support to create a groundswell of support plus the public PR necessary to sway returning legislators who were otherwise on the fence or even opposed.
He's also taking advantage of the (at least as o
Re: (Score:2)
Lame duck sessions are the ideal time to get controversial bills passed. Lame ducks can vote on anything they want without giving a shit about constituents, contributions, or their caucus.
This applies only to those who were not re-elected to congress. All the rest -- that majority -- still have to worry about the next re-election bid.
Re: (Score:1)
This hits the nail on the head.
Although I do look forward to seeing which politicians vote against it -- in the unlikely event that it comes to a vote, that is.
Re: (Score:2)
If he really gave a rat's ass about it, he wouldn't have waited till he was in a lame duck Senate to propose this.
Ron Wyden isn't going anywhere anytime soon. He is in office until 2016!
This is all about getting some good press for himself and possibly the Dems in general, and bad press for the Reps coming in next month who'll actually have to vote on this bill. "See?!? WE wanted to fix this horrible thing, but those EEEEVVIIILLL Republicans stopped us!!!!!!"
Honest question. Why would Republicans not support this bill?
Be a terrible shame if there were enough Tea Party types (or sympathizers, at least) in the Senate next year to actually approve this bill and make it law....
Last time I checked, tea partiers were all Republicans.
Re: (Score:1)
No, but the Senate that he's asking to vote on this bill will disappear in about two weeks, and never be seen again.
If Wyden really wanted the bill made into law, he'd have waited till the new Congress was in session. Or even done it four years ago when the House and Senate were both controlled by Dems.
Because the Dems proposed it?
Seriously, if such a bill had bipartisan
Re: (Score:1)
Honest question. Why would Republicans not support this bill?
Good question. And completely unanswerable based solely on the description of the bill here on /.. (How DO you properly end a sentence that ends with '/.'?)
But if you read the bill [senate.gov] (pdf), you might find some clues. For example:
Re: (Score:1)
All this NSA stuff that got leaked -- he knew it before it got leaked. He's on the committee that has regulatory oversight to that agency. Did he do anything when he found out what they were doing? No.
Wow are you wrong. Seriously, overwhelming, jaw-droppingly-stupidly wrong.
With NSA revelations, Sen. Ron Wyden’s vague privacy warnings finally become clear [washingtonpost.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Wow are you wrong. Seriously, overwhelming, jaw-droppingly-stupidly wrong.
And then you provide a quote that proves I am right. Thanks.
It was one of the strangest personal crusades on Capitol Hill: For years, Sen. Ron Wyden said he was worried that intelligence agencies were violating Americans' privacy. But he couldn't say how. That was a secret.
He wasn't "worried" they were, he KNEW they were. He knew and did nothing but issue "vague warnings". It was a SEEcret, you see. And as a US Senator with a mandate to serve the public who elected him, he didn't.
But Wyden (D-Ore.) was bound by secrecy rules, unable to reveal what he knew.
Those "secrecy rules" would not prevent him from writing exactly the bill he's being lauded for writing now. It would not have prevented him from writing a bill to prohibit what was happening. It would not have prevented him from doing a l
It will fail. (Score:1)
It will fail because he's a freedom hating democrat!
Re: You don't need to switch it on (Score:1)
I have a backdoor, but it's one way, so I use an Android phone.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
some of your items are funny, even though I'm not an Obama fan.
"punishes Syria for using chemical weapons against its populace", not our problem how a foreign government puts down internal rebellion. If enough people in Syria think that's bad, they can make a new government. would you rather those people were killed with guns? dead is dead, and Syria wa not a signatory to any ban on chemical weapons.
Hold Putin accountable for invading Ukraine..how would Obama do that exactly, we already have sanctions. S
Re: (Score:1)
"punishes Syria for using chemical weapons against its populace", not our problem how a foreign government puts down internal rebellion. If enough people in Syria think that's bad, they can make a new government.
I think they did.
Re: (Score:2)
But, but, but...chemical weapons are WMDs!!!
And technically, the anti-proliferation Treaties and such DO make it our business when WMD's are being used....
Note, for the record, that I personally think adding chemical weapons to the WMD list was probably a serious mistake. But they did, which provided an excuse for an invasion or Iraq, SHOULD HAVE provided a justificatio
Re: (Score:2)
or, that's no concern of ours what government of a backwards, third world toilet does. We only make things worse for ourselves intervening. We turned Iraq where Al-Qaeda wasn't into terrorist recruiting and playground...
Re: (Score:2)
incidentally, we provided Saddam with the money and dual-use tech to make chemical weapons. How stupid and ham-fisted does that look U.S. to look to call those weapons we made possible WMD and then invade?
U.S. middle east policy is beyond moronic
Re: (Score:2)
Do you think we tried all of the Japanese/Italian/German soldiers during WW II?
Do you think we tried any of the central soldiers during WW I
Do you think we tried any Korean soldiers during the Korean War?
This is a silly fallacy that we have that these people deserve a trial, and if convicted get to stay in prison. I am sorry - that is not how our international treaties work, enemy combatants are kept until the war is over (remember t