Senate Bill Draft Would Prohibit Unbreakable Encryption (ap.org) 267
buck-yar quotes a report from the Associated Press: "A draft version of a Senate bill would effectively prohibit unbreakable encryption and require companies to help the government access data on a computer or mobile device with a warrant."
The two Senators finalizing the bill announced "No individual or company is above the law," saying their goal is to ensure compliance with court orders to help law enforcement or to provide decrypted information. The ACLU's legislative counsel argued the drafted legislation represents a "clear threat to everyone's privacy and security," and the bill is opposed by another member of the Senate committee, Ron Wyden, who says it would require "American companies to build a backdoor... They would be required by federal law per this statute to decide how to weaken their products to make Americans less safe."
The two Senators finalizing the bill announced "No individual or company is above the law," saying their goal is to ensure compliance with court orders to help law enforcement or to provide decrypted information. The ACLU's legislative counsel argued the drafted legislation represents a "clear threat to everyone's privacy and security," and the bill is opposed by another member of the Senate committee, Ron Wyden, who says it would require "American companies to build a backdoor... They would be required by federal law per this statute to decide how to weaken their products to make Americans less safe."
Write your senator (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a good time to drop them a letter AND an email AND a phone call AND a fax while at it. Go on, do what's expected of you but too few of you actually do.
Re:Write your senator (Score:5, Insightful)
I have no Senator, not even an Opel Senator.
But if unbreakable encryption is forbidden then only criminals will use it.
Re:Write your senator (Score:5, Insightful)
Sounds similar to arguments the NRA has been using for years. Congress is not persuaded by logic. Let's add pieces to this. If all legal encryption is breakable then criminals would use unbreakable encryption, criminals would decrypt all law abiding internet traffic and Congress will be faced with the same reality China faces with the great firewall of China; Some tech just can't be regulated.
I love it when nerds can emasculate politicians.
This... (Score:3)
That will work just about as well as laws that make suicide illegal. Or guns.
Unenforceable; impractical; in the final analysis, stupid.
Re:This... (Score:5, Insightful)
It will work *very* well, just not at the ends that these Senators want.
Do you know how painful it is to work with European companies thanks to how shitty Facebook and company were with cooperating?
Now a law that ends all unbreakable encryption will make it impossible for me to convince anyone in Europe that they won't be owned the second they send some data over. Even though our app doesn't require any sort of private information, or take any credit cards.
Yes, the Europeans in that case will be technically wrong, but who can really blame them for not being at least a little gunshy in that regard? They not going to want to have to closely inspect every single purchase they make of a product where they can't make an assumption that we are making a good faith attempt to protect them because our fucking government won't let us.
These Senators are idiots and appear to want us to lose all our international business for some stupid terrorist fearmongering bullshit.
Re:This... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:This... (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, the Europeans in that case will be technically wrong, but who can really blame them for not being at least a little gunshy in that regard?
We would be technically wrong, but procedurally correct, because if you have laws like that, plus secret courts and gag orders, staying as far away as possible is the only way to keep data safe.
The secret courts are the worst. You know when we over here had them the last time? It was in Nazi Germany.
Re:This... (Score:5, Insightful)
Unenforceable; impractical; in the final analysis, stupid.
You folks still aren't getting it. The law provides probable cause against anyone using unbreakable encryption (like such a thing exists). If the cops can't decipher your communications, they can bust the door down, take everything and arrest you on mere suspicion.
The sad thing is that these laws are such an easy sell to the panicky and actually very authoritarian public.
And there's that name, Feinstein, again. Fascism in a dress.
Re: (Score:2)
They can already do that. For any reason, or no reason. And shoot your pets and family while they're at it. The consequences? Someone may be required to say "oops." But probably not. Unless you're thinking of another country than the US, of course, can't speak for them. Here, though, totally a way of doing business for law enforcement.
Re:This... (Score:5, Informative)
No such thing (Score:5, Interesting)
Unbreakable encryption -- outside of direct coercion of the sender or receiver -- is trivial. Here's an encrypted message from me:
"The cockatrice is in the jacuzzi"
Let me know when you can decrypt it without directly coercing me. You're allowed to use any intellectual or computing resources available to anyone on the planet. Or all of them. Until you can, there's no way, literally no way to make unbreakable encryption inaccessible to anyone with a vocabulary larger than a parrot's (on second thought, that might be enough anyway.) Making such a thing illegal to do, or use, is completely impractical.
You can punish someone for using it, if you can catch them at it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Of course it's encrypted. The fact that in its present form it is human-readable in no way helps you decipher the actual message. But the information is there. The intended recipient, in possession of the key, will decode it easily. You will never do so.
Re: This... (Score:3)
Breivik had planned his attack for years, becoming a farmer for access to large amounts of fertilizer, model airplane group for fuel, hunting license for the rifle, joined a pistol club for the hand gun, picked a small island, assassinated the one police officer first... He's got way more in common with IS than your average school shooter, if the bomb had brought the building down as he planned he'd have killed hundreds in the capital instead of eight. The mass shooting was just his follow-up/plan b. No, it
Re:Write your senator (Score:4, Insightful)
Sounds similar to arguments the NRA has been using for years. Congress is not persuaded by logic. Let's add pieces to this. If all legal encryption is breakable then criminals would use unbreakable encryption
So basically the satellite tv providers, cable, game systems and all the rest would have to use breakable encryption. Yah, that is going to work.
I'm sure they'll be exceptions for certain types of large businesses
Re:Write your senator (Score:5, Interesting)
This is a good time to drop them a letter AND an email AND a phone call AND a fax while at it. Go on, do what's expected of you but too few of you actually do.
I don't give them money, so they don't care.
https://youtu.be/Ylomy1Aw9Hk [youtu.be]
Last Week Tonight with John Oliver: Congressional Fundraising (HBO)
Well worth 21 min of your time.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
To the contrary, if it gets more people to watch, then I'm happy to tolerate the cheesy jokes. The show is really an educational show, but if that was all it was, how many people would watch? With the jokes it becomes pop culture, and more people watch and learn.
Re: (Score:2)
This is a good time to drop them a letter AND an email AND a phone call AND a fax while at it. Go on, do what's expected of you but too few of you actually do.
I don't give them money, so they don't care.
Well, they won't care AS MUCH. But if enough actual voters contact them about something, so that it appears to be an issue which could affect election, they might care.
Campaign financing money has a huge influence, as Oliver notes. But short of outright election fraud, representatives still do actually need enough real people (not just rich donors) voting to get elected.
Last Week Tonight with John Oliver: Congressional Fundraising (HBO)
Well worth 21 min of your time.
I don't mean to be too critical, since I've watched this myself and agree with the problem -- but you know what would be a BETTER use o
Re: (Score:2)
Coming later this week; Other impossible things that are to be criminalized!
1) Perfect Vacuums
2) Absolute Zero
3) Black Holes
4) Parallel Lines
5) A wide variety of Perpetual Motion Machines
We don't want them terrists to be violatin' the laws of Thermodynamics, Information Theory, etc. by using any of these things, um, improperly.
Re: (Score:2)
King Canute had an interesting way of demonstating the idiocy of assuming you can pass laws that pretend to change nature.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Stop doing that.
You are creating the false impression in people that talking to politicians has an effect. It doesn't. The few ones that listen come out and talk to us. The ones who hide see us as bothersome, because they understand the political process to be about money, money and also money. From the crazy election system and fundraising to the outright bribery and lobbyism, nothing matters if it doesn't come with a cheque.
Writing won't fix this problem. The system is broken, so stop pretending the syste
Before everyone gets up in arms about this... (Score:5, Interesting)
Was this bill introduced with the intention of passing it, or was it done for election time?
Many bills get introduced that have zero chance of passing, rather they do it so the Congresscritters can go back to their home state and say "I'm fighting for you, to stop those evil terrorists from threatening your family, vote for me!"
Re: (Score:2)
So the call is between being simultaneoiusly draconian dictators and idiots or abusing their office for personal gain?
Re:Before everyone gets up in arms about this... (Score:5, Insightful)
No this bill was introduced so when it fails and they introduce a slightly les offensive bill it will pass.
Its like how people will vote for someone based on them being "not as bad as some previous guy"
Battle? You're speaking to the conquered. (Score:2)
The battle was lost long, long ago. But that does not reduce the satisfaction one gets from complaining about it.
Re:Before everyone gets up in arms about this... (Score:4, Interesting)
What I don't think you understand here is that the opinion of the majority of Americans is completely irrelevant to what government actually does. Completely. Most politicians couldn't give two s**ts about what the public thinks. And although that is usually counterproductive, in situations like this, it is actually the right policy. The average American doesn't have any idea what encryption is or does; they just know that it magically keeps them safe. As such, their opinion on how crypto algorithms should be designed isn't important, because their opinion is not an informed opinion.
To use an analogy here, the majority of Americans want flying cars. The fact that they won't know how to drive flying cars doesn't matter to them. The fact that it isn't currently technologically feasible to build flying cars doesn't matter to them, either. If government listened to those demands, they would pass a law saying that 25% of cars next year must fly. Doing so won't give us flying cars; it will just cause all American automakers to shut down because of their inability to comply with that law. Politicians know this, because they have listened to people whose opinions actually are informed, and as a result, they won't pass such a law no matter how many Americans might jump up and whine, "But I want my flying car NOW!"
There are exactly two groups of people whose opinions matter in this case: law enforcement and the technology industry. Law enforcement's opinions matter because they're in the trenches, and they think they know what tools they need to get their jobs done. The opinions of people in the tech industry matter because they're the ones who can say whether or not what they are asking for A. is feasible, and B. can be done in a way that doesn't completely destroy the security of the system as a whole. Nobody else's opinion matters in this debate, because nobody else has sufficient knowledge of the ramifications of such a law (including, apparently, much of Congress).
It would be laughable to allow government positions to be decided by a bunch of uninformed people merely because they scream their ignorance at a louder volume than the rest of us. That's the surest way to governmental collapse, and is the reason that most politicians quickly erect an intern-powered bozo filter around their inbox....
No, people want to be in control of their lives. Some of them wrongly believe that banning encryption will give them more control. We merely must educate them about the fact that doing so will actually give them far less control.
In some cases, governments go too far in trying to create the illusion of control, such as many of the things our government did after 9/11. However, the people grasping for power after 9/11 were mostly unopposed. The airline industry has always been on the verge of bankruptcy, and they weren't about to try to fight the government to keep them from forcing all of those changes, because they wouldn't have survived. In contrast, the government is now going up against the three largest companies on the planet Earth (Apple, Google, and Microsoft)—companies that make essentially 100% of the world's smart
Re:Before everyone gets up in arms about this... (Score:5, Insightful)
While I agree with you in general, you are too strict and don't understand the concept of democracy. Look:
There are exactly two groups of people whose opinions matter in this case: law enforcement and the technology industry.
That is a technocracy, not a democracy. Rulership by the people means exactly that. If people are uninformed, make them informed. That is the actual reason why we have representative democracy (i.e. parliaments and such), because a small group of people whose sole job it is actually has the opportunity to become informed and then decide.
Of course, the current political system doesn't work that way because they don't (any of that), but at least that is the idea.
People should decide, otherwise we end up in what we have in Brussels: A technocratic government completely detached from the people it governs making decisions purely on administrative merit.
"No individual or company is above the law" (Score:3)
Oh yeah? (Score:2, Informative)
GCv5c3FA9xfa7&aigJ
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think they will be fooled by you speaking Klingon.
Re: (Score:2)
HWLVTYRVYIAWHFYGPVFZCWH
Also of note: "Go fuck yourself Feinstein!" and "Big Brother is watching you" are two strings of equal length, funny how that works out.
Privacy, penumbras, and emanations (Score:3)
Feinstein ain't no Einsten (Score:5, Interesting)
She's just a paranoid old woman who's so scared about "the terrorists" that she's willing to give up ... what's the line ? Oh yeah, "essential liberty" ... sounds familiar somehow.
I happen to work on De Anza Blvd, and I was looking out the window when the proverbial was hitting the fan with Apple and the FBI, there was suddenly a cavalcade of blacked-out sedans overriding the lights sequence, with police blowing their horn as someone (my assumption here is that it was the senator, no-one else really gets that level of police co-operation) halted the normal traffic lights sequence so this entire entourage could turn into Infinite Loop.
So, Diane was going to yell at Tim. I have some reasonable hope that Tim told her to stick it where the sun don't shine, but I think he's more polite (not to mention politically astute) than I, so I'm sure he came up with a gentlemanly way to say it.
The good news is that she won't be re-elected because she's not going to run any more. She's too old (thank $deity) so we have a chance of getting someone in who isn't a complete fucking moron when it comes to national security. There's no way this state will elect a republican, so we're stuck with her until then. She gets a lot of votes, and I really hope that's just people voting along party lines because if people actually *want* her policies, well... shit, time to leave.
Senators get blacked out sedans? (Score:3)
Seems like this has potential as a campaign issue.
Deal (Score:2)
No encryption is unbreakable, it just takes a rather long time with current knowledge and technology.
Re:Deal (Score:5, Informative)
A one-time pad is pretty close, in that you can never really tell when you've actually decoded it.
Re: (Score:3)
It's not pretty close, a genuine OTP is unencryptable. The phrase is "information theoretic security".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
One time-anything will work (Score:2)
You don't even need a phone book. A pad - one time or otherwise - requires that both ends have the key. IOW, agreement ahead of time on encoding.
If you're going to do that, you can just agree to nonsensical, 100% non-mapping encodings such as this:
message: "The swan is in the jacuzzi"
meaning: "set the timer for 10 minutes and run like hell"
message: "seven burgers at midnight"
meaning: "the VP is the target"
message: "Transgender cotton candy"
meaning: "we'll meet at the fenceline"
How do you prove "unbreakable" encryption? (Score:2)
Perhaps we should just ban encryption that can be unencrypted.
Re: (Score:2)
Breakable for one, breakable for all. (Score:3)
They don't get the inherent flaw with "breakable" encryption: if the government can break it then so can third-parties. Which may be other governments. Like China looking for industrial secrets. Hell, even right now you know that encrypted channels of every kind are being recorded for the inevitable day quantum computing becomes a reality and they can then be decrypted after the fact.
Ban (Score:3)
Ban unbreakable encryption. Politicians proving once again they are dangerously uneducated. About time you stopped electing people with socially useless law and politics degrees.
Doesn't go far enough (Score:2)
We just need to ban lawmakers. We have enough laws now anyway.
Good (Score:5, Insightful)
This is good. Not the bill, but this is the correct place for this debate, in the legislature, not the courts. Now we just need to make sure it loses, and for the right reasons.
Cameron vs Panama Papers (Score:4, Interesting)
The Best Argument Against (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think any government demanding something like this is inherently untrustworthy.
They are arguing that you shouldn't be allowed to express your thoughts by virtue of not being selective with your speech. I mean the Big Brother tropes have played out in a frightening parody, making it illegal to escape the tv screen. No one is above the law.
Except who does the law really serve? Forbidding people to keep secrets is just kicking in the doors to people's mind. And for what? There is someone even worse who would
Second Amendment Issue? (Score:5, Interesting)
Follow along with me:
Cryptograghy is subject to ITAR (International Traffic in Arms Regulations)
This means the Federal Government treats Cryptography as an Armament
What does the second amendment say: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"
Hey NRA time to step up and defend the Second Amendment against the heinous assault. Slippery slope and all. You don't want these guys coming after your guns do you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So... $200 tax stamp required, along with finger prints (another $75) passport photo ($10) and a 3 month to 2 year wait for your request to be processed. For each algorithm you want to use.
Of course, they could always close the registry to new additions, like they did with machine guns in 1986 and create an artificial limit... "Hey, I have a domain and a SSL certificate. Before the closure you really couldn't sell 'em since they had no real value, but after the closure it is gonna cost you $20k".
Re: (Score:2)
The ACLU does defend the Second Amendment. The ACLU interprets the Second Amendment's reference to "a well-regulated Militia" to mean a collective right, rather than an individual right. Which means the ACLU would probably not agree with my line of reasoning whereas the NRA interprets the Second Amendment as promoting an individual right and would be the more appropriate civilian advocate to defend our right to use encryption on an individual basis.
So NO, not an excuse to shit on the NRA but an appeal to
Re: (Score:3)
Follow along with me: Cryptograghy is subject to ITAR (International Traffic in Arms Regulations) This means the Federal Government treats Cryptography as an Armament What does the second amendment say: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" Hey NRA time to step up and defend the Second Amendment against the heinous assault. Slippery slope and all. You don't want these guys coming after your guns do you.
OMG... brilliant!
Prior art: https://xkcd.com/504/ [xkcd.com]
Thanks (Score:2)
Don't remember seeing that one before, but it is just possible that my sub-conscious remembered. Do I get to claim originality on the NRA part?
Re: Second Amendment Issue? (Score:2)
Hahaha (Score:2)
Of course, this is Feinstein, wicked witch of the west, so of course she would.
So they'll be arresting Senator McCain then? (Score:2)
I'm given to understand that he couldn't be broken. Plainly a threat. Lock him up.
They brought this on themselves (Score:5, Insightful)
The NSA and FBI brought this on themselves. Before all the spying on everyone, parallel construction, and warrant less use of stingray plus secret courts, nobody was all that much interested in consumer products with unbreakable encryption.
If they want to blame someone for this, they need to look in a mirror and understand that their operations are just plain creepy and incompatible with a free country. They are starting to smell like the Stasi and a significant portion of the citizens of this country don't care to give them any more of a foothold.
Senator must go! Priced to move! (Score:2)
Republicans, are you looking for a senator who shares your values? A richer-than-fuck mucky-muck who will fit right in with the corrupt Wall Street crowd? Maybe you need a stooge who will rubber-stamp every authoritarian defense industry and law enforcement wet dream?
Pick yourself up a Senator Feinstein today! We only have one left, and we sure as fuck don’t want her in California. I know, she’s a “democrat” but that’s really in name only. She shares your values more than Grass
Is there a time limit? (Score:2)
Legal Politics Needs Encryption (Score:2)
How would our political process function if one party knew what the other party would do next?
careful what you wish for (Score:2)
I am a master criminal ... (Score:2)
I am really afraid that Feinstein & Burr's bill will become law. If it does the FBI will be able to read all my plans as I won't be allowed to encrypt them. That would be a shame since I have a nice business going here ... maybe I could move to Canada. Perhaps I could give them some campaign contributions to make this go away. This is really bad news, a lot of my friends would also need to stop doing dirty deeds, think of the unemployment that this would cause!
Wherever we may find it. (Score:2)
The Supreme Court needs to reiterate the right to speak encrypted in the First Amendment, and that "regulating business activity is not regulating speech" is itself unconstitutional sophistry.
Full text and commentary at The Hill (Score:2)
Stupid senators asking for laws by knee jerk. (Score:3)
Dear Senate, all of you are drooling morons. uncrackable encryption has existed for decades, and will continue to exist after your stupid law. All the law does is makes honest people criminals.
It's to the point that it's not worth it to be an honest citizen because the criminals have more freedom.
Think a step further (Score:5, Interesting)
All "trusted" internet commerce where you plug in your credit card number is dependent upon encryption strong enough to prevent credit card and identity theft. If this law were to pass no internet commerce company would be able to use encryption strong enough to prevent people from stealing credit card numbers by skimming traffic. It may take a little bit (hours or days) but someone skimming Amazon or bank traffic will start being to pull out credit card and account numbers and the trust of internet banking will be destroyed for years.
This is what will prevent strong encryption from going away- the encryption has to be available to all users for it to be useful. People, credit card companies and insurance companies will not tolerate money being stolen whole sale that we have not seen yet. Yes I am aware that people get their card numbers stolen everyday. Removing encryption would guarantee that your card is stolen the first time you use your card on the internet.
So in the long run... (Score:3)
Then the only people who have an immense, evil amount of power are governments... beyond what we (in the US) allow today.
Not to get into the politics of it all, but doesn't limiting the size and scope of our government here in the US make the most sense in the long-run? Handing over power to our government might seem great when the right people are in office, but when the people change (and the power is still there), everyone is screwed. History repeating itself over and over.
What planet are they smoking? (Score:2)
Everyone here knows what's being proposed is technically infeasible. We would effectively end up with no encryption at all. So what would the corporate response be? What would Apple, Google, Cisco, et al, do if this bill were to pass? They can't possibly comply, not to mention their sales would plummet. Their only option, if they want to survive, is to extend their middle finger, pull out their millions in political funding and tax dollars (whatever relatively paltry taxes they actually pay) and setup shop
Re: (Score:2)
'passed' and 'enforced' are not the same thing.
cant be enforced. just cant be done. how could you detect it or stop it?
(in fact this post means something entirely different, lol)
what fun this could be.
For the n-th time (Score:3)
Think about it, dear politicians, what this would mean for your economy.
Let's say I have a company. I have data that is important to me because it contains trade secrets. I'm in research and development, i.e. THE field you want to attract. No/little use of resources, employs lots of people from top eggheads to braindead menial workers and the output is patents that can be multiplied at will with zero cost and sold (not only domestic but also abroad) for insane amounts of money.
In case you're too stupid to understand that, dear politican: YOU DO WANT THAT BUSINESS in your town, state and country. You do want that. It's the perfect cash cow, the industry that turns literally NOTHING into gold.
I will steer clear of you if you disallow me to use unbreakable encryption and perfect safety from spying, though. For obvious reasons: There is none, never has been, never will be, a government-only backdoor. Or rather, there will not be an anything-only backdoor. Any backdoor you can use will eventually be available to my competitor.
Oh, it's safe because only you have the key? Think again. That key is in the hands of some person working for you. And the entities interested in my research are not only corporations but also whole countries with funds that make that guy, or the guys (seriously, whether it's one or a handful, who gives a shit?), blind when I only suggest paying them. And I will pay them. I have no reason to kill them, I turn them into accomplices. And then I have that key. And that means I have that key to all the research happening in your country. Can you imagine just how much I can pay your underpaid public office workers before this becomes unfeasible for me?
In other words, in simple words so even you politicians get it: Do that and NOBODY in their sane mind will place their R&D data into a place where your insanity rules. R&D is one of the things you can very easily move abroad. It's not like delivering takes lots of money. Relocating the people I need is peanuts compared to the risk of doing business where you invent insane laws like this.
I jknew without even reading the article that .... (Score:2)
What about cross border software? (Score:3)
Hopefully this proposed law will fail...
Define "unbreakable" (Score:2)
Because encryption isn't unbreakable.
It just takes a while.
Such a law is not constitutional (Score:2)
The US Constitution does not give the federal government the power to restrict or even to control technology used to secure communications or "private papers" (my 17th century label for data), does it? The 4th amendment clearly states that the federal government can't even try to collect information without having a warrant that clearly identifies the information to be collected. Since this clearly defined restriction on what the federal government may do comes only in a statement otherwise confirming a c
Offline banking if this passes (Score:2)
If this bill passes, I'll open a bank that's not online. No Internet connection at all.
It'd be the only US bank that's safe.
--PeterM
OpenBSD (Score:2)
What I don't get about this (Score:2)
" do magic" in legalese (Score:2)
As Julian Sanchez insightfully tweeted:
"Burr-Feinstein may be the most insane thing I've ever seen seriously offered as a piece of legislation. It is "do magic" in legalese."
Re: (Score:2)
If this bill became law, it would be great for "black market" open-source encryption software.
Or, you know, to obtain encryption software from one of the other 200 countries on the planet.
Or does the US Congress think that they pass laws for the whole planet?
Re:OSS (Score:5, Funny)
Or does the US Congress think that they pass laws for the whole planet?
Was that a serious question? ;-)
Ban it? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you own hardware or software that is securely encrypted, then you will be committing an offence.
I won't be committing an offence regardless of how silly the US Congress is in this case, since I'm not in the US or subject to their jurisdiction. Isn't that the point here? The rest of the world is going to carry on trying to promote security and privacy with new technology. If the US government is more concerned about spying on its own citizens than about helping them to promote their security and privacy, the rest of the world will simply leave the US behind.
(I don't really expect this to happen, BTW.
Re: (Score:3)
If you hadn't already said that you weren't in the US, I'd know it from this remark. The US, I am very sorry to tell you, has an incredible overabundance of absurdist, foolish, ridiculous, unconstitutional, and otherwise (cough) "serious" laws.
Re: (Score:2)
US laws have a way of either finding ways to be enforced overseas or become "examples" for other countries to use. Do not take them lightly. The US Senate may not be the Supreme Senate of Earth, but some legislative bodies have more influence than others. If one government becomes infected with this nonsense, do not assume that your government is immune, even if they are resistant in some way.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Well in spite of US pressure, New Zealand became Nuclear free and no later governments have been brave enough to try and change that status.
New Zealand got punished economically for their democratic decision, how dare a country of (back them) 3 million people say NO to the US. At the same time China got "Favoured Nation Status" for trade.
Unfortunately since then our MPs have had less spine, the should have said NO to the TPPA too.
The one thing the US is consistent about, its moral stance depends on how much
NZ nuclear free (Score:2)
Free Speech (Score:2)
Oh, "free speech" is no obstacle. We've already been informed -- by legal action -- that "free speech zones" are perfectly acceptable limitations on speech. As is content. As is FCC regulation. And so on. In this case, "free speech zones" will be within government purview, that's all. You don't such a law would apply to the US government, do you???
Just as with "no right to shout fire in a crowded building", you aren't allowed to exercise the right of free speech that way, b
Re: (Score:2)
It will keep many *businesses* cowed, which is more important. That's how strong encryption gets out into the general public... companies who built it into their apps. Without businesses and encryption for everyone by default, the "herd immunity" of general encryption adoption goes away and the remaining practitioners who might need or desire it are now in danger.
The programmer or the savvy user who knows how to get encryption is never going to be reached by this. But we need to remember that most people
Re: (Score:2)
Or just to implement your own from several encryption algorithms that are well known.
There should be a "too stupid to govern" clause in the Constitution, whereby if anyone tries to pass a law to ban thermodynamics or make Pi 3, they are immediately stripped of all offices and powers, and banned for life from ever even entering a government or taxpayer-funded building again.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We seem to have a bunch of politicians that are convinced the citizenry are fucking stupid.
Don't live up their expectations.
Wish you weren't an AC, but still, people keep making that argument like it's somehow insightful or meaningful. It's not.
You can make a parallel argument that making it illegal for companies to manufacture and sell personal nuclear weapons is "outlawing physics". Or that making it illegal to sell sarin gas is "outlawing chemistry". Or that making it illegal to distribute anthrax is "outlawing biology".
Such a parallel argument would be equally missing-the-point. Just because a thing is possible to do
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Such a parallel argument would be equally missing-the-point. Just because a thing is possible to do doesn't preclude laws making that thing illegal to do, or to own. And while those laws may not make owning or doing that thing impossible, they can make it rare or difficult for Joe Average to do or own.
Except that in this case, the thing being made illegal is a piece of software whose source code has already been declared protected free speech.
Even if Joe Average doesn't touch it, Joe McTerrorist sure will---thus defeating the entire purpose of this bill.
Re: (Score:2)
Even if Joe Average doesn't touch it, Joe McTerrorist sure will---thus defeating the entire purpose of this bill.
Not necessarily. The terrorists behind the recent Paris attacked sent plain text messages. Also, doing encryption right is hard. Joe McTerrorist might easily make a mistake, or he may run the software on a compromised device that intercepts plain text traffic.
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, you think terrorist suppression is the purpose of this bill?
Oh, my. Good thing you weren't at Jonestown.
Re: (Score:2)
No, because a person can not at home create a nuclear weapon or gasoline with no ingredients whatsoever. They can however create encryption software with exactly 0 input from anyone else.
Re: (Score:2)
No, because a person can not at home create a nuclear weapon or gasoline with no ingredients whatsoever. They can however create encryption software with exactly 0 input from anyone else.
I hear you, but that's not meaningful. An insignificant number of people will bother. What is concerning to the government isn't that you, or I, or anyone else fluent in programming could write an encryption routine. What concerns them is companies like Google and Apple doing it by default, so that even incapable or incompetent enemies of the state benefit.
That I could, theoretically, obtain and use fissile materials if I simply knew enough (and yes, that bar is high) isn't at all the same as the idea
Re: (Score:2)