Slashdot Mirror
HR 46: Wiretapping, Forfeiture, Crypto Penalties
Thank you, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Ut.). You've taken the inoffensive "Public Safety Medal of Valor" bill and quietly tacked on an amendment that does oh-so-much more. Wiretapping to record email and phone conversations of people suspected of computer crime (who needs that
Fourth Amendment
anyway?). Forfeiture (before you are convicted or even charged) of "devices used in ... intellectual property theft." And extra penalties for using crypto, nice way to stigmatize an entire industry there.
Dave Kopel's analysis
is at Cryptome, along with the bill text, etc.
As a former resident, alumnus of the UofU, and "Pie" cook (a lowly life form around there)
I remember how we used to delimit the population...
Utahn- a resident who agrees to see that there is life beyond the "Zion Curtain", and can hold even the merest discussion without slamming people for religion.
Utard- Those that think that there is nothing more to life than their own "piece" of the state Be that it be Delta,Moab,Happy Valley,Cottonwood Canyon, Park City (even though that is Colorado:) ), or the exiled Utah city of Pocatello
BTW this hold true for anyone in anystate... Just Utah was one of the easiest examples of this. But I now see it very prevelant in Upstate NY as well As Other places I've lived
*waiting for the flames*
-- Life: Hate the Game... Love the cereal
This is the kind of $100,000,000 boondoggle that gives politicians the reputation they so richly deserve.
Take a bill about "A." Tack on things that have absolutely NOTHING to do with "A." (Which IMHO should be illegal.)
Bury a provision which will have every wage earning American paying $3 for the privilege of having somebody trample over their feet. And "voila," political contributors from the security equipemnt community will be amply rewarded for something that is unmonitored (and isn't going to happen since that costs money and the idea here is PROFIT!)
Why not start with a bill called the "Widows and Orphans" protection bill and tack on legalization for recreational pharmacopea, enforced under-age sex and very high-stakes gambling (televised Russian Roulette ["a la" Deer Hunter.]) Then lambaste anyone who dares vote against protection of widows and orphans.
The only thing that stops me from going out into the streets right now is that I'm secure in the knowledge that the collection mechanisms are already in place, the analysis equipment is already in place but the software lags way behind in capability and that I'm a Canadian and I can laugh at the Americans for screwing themselves with this utter stupidity.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
However, a different version was passed in the Senate, which would mean that it has to get sent back (House & Senate must pass identical versions of the bill) to the House
It seems to me that Congress could use some version control. CVS anyone?
don't take this the wrong way please but are you freaking insane. You've just proven something that I have serious issue with on a majority of slashdot users.
To quote: "Makes you wanna Ralph, more than ever!"
You list a paragraph about how much you don't trust government authorities and yet you say that this should make us want someone who wants the government to have MORE power, almost to the point of socialism. How can you reconsile this in any rational thought process?
This bothers me more and more is that people wanted Ralph Nader for his consumer support background (which I am ALL in favor) and yet never bothered to read the Socialist manifesto that was the Green Party platform.
We don't need a bigger government we need a constitutional government that doesn't step over it's bounds. The government should protect us from the things that we cannot do ourselves (fight big business, foreign powers) and set laws that are within thier power as defined by the constituion. Everything else should pass to the states. And yet you people still call for the Green party and Nader under a platform that would pass EVERYTHING to the government to decide.
It just blows my mind!
"Fighting the underpants gnomes since 1998!" "Bruce Schneier knows the state of schroedinger's cat"
Too bad they killed Presidential Line Item Veto, although I seriously doubt that Clinton would've done a thing on this one...
Say goodbye to your rights, kids. It's gonna be a new Dark Ages for those of us here in the States....
sig not found
But guess who will be president when this bill will probably come across the desk looking for a signature? You guessed it...someone who probably doesn't understand much about encryption anyways.
This sounds awfully unconstitutional to me, or at least worthy of a contest in court.
Kopel's National Review article on the same subject.
The Independence Institute -- Kopel's organization. Note that the link on this page has the following quote regarding the bill:
Note: the bill's sponsors have recently agreed to remove all objectionable items, except for the encryption provision
The real DunkPonch is user 215121. Everyone else is Bruce Perens.
The ruling, in a nutshell, said that a recount without rules (which is what the David Boise said he wanted) would lead to 'unequal treatment' of the votes.
Which is complete hogwash, of course. The votes are already treated unequally. They're cast and counted as each district decides to do. Some are hand-counted from the start. Some are impossible to recount due to the method of voting used. Why should recounts be any different? There were representatives from both parties present at each counting table. They only counted votes they could agree on, those where the intent was clear. Even the manufacturer of the vote-counting machines in a lot of the districts agreed that a recount was the best way to get a conclusive answer as to who the people elected. The margin of error of the machines was much greater than the lead that Bush had. We should have had a recount of all counties where a recount was possible. Excluding those that did hand counts from the start, those that used machines that don't allow for a recount, and possibly those that used optically read ballots with a very tiny margin of error, if that was agreeable to both sides. It should have been done this way from the start.
Even if we're the two wisest, most honest people on earth, there's no telling that we're gonna both come to the same conclusions from this dented piece of paper.
They managed to count many ballots by hand. Yes, they didn't agree on all of them, but quite often there was a clear intent discernable from looking at the ballot. Intent which even the opposing party would not deny. In the end, you end up with more votes counted and included than you get with machines.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
This sort of thing is not new; I am, frankly, surprised that there isn't more of an outcry for federal single subject rules. I guess the people who work the system for a living don't want it to change.
You've hit the point right there, I think. I've been wondering out loud for some time now whether or not I have the answer for that last problem -- the fact that half of our biggest institutional problems will never be solved because it negatively affects those in power.
If memory serves, a constitutional amendment requires 2/3 majority of both houses, but does not require presidential signature. Then, it requires 3/4 of the states to approve it. So, by design, getting an amendment passed and ratified is very difficult, especially if it affects congress in any way. (quick trivia quiz -- what's the last amendment to be added to the US constitution? One restricting congressional pay-raises to take effect the following term. How'd that get passed? It was part of the original bill of rights, but took over 200 years to get ratified. Most modern amendments include "drop dead" language if not ratified in some short number of years).
However, there is still hope (and here's where my memory may be failing). A majority of states may vote for a Constitutional Convention, in which amendments may be proposed, voted on, and (immediately, I think) ratified.
I have yet to hear anyone of any authority or voice advocate such a move, so I may be way off on this one. But it seems to me that this would be a fantastic avenue for issues with broad public support but little chance of congressional action, for example, Campaign Finance, Line-Item Veto, Same-Subject Legislation, or Term Limits. Unfortunately, it could also be a fast track for less constitutionally-appropriate, but popular, "hot button" issues like Internet Porn or Flag Burning.
Maybe this warrants a /. discussion in and of itself? Maybe (in a broader sense) /. needs a "Politics" section (or a sister "PolDot" site)? I'm really curious to hear others' thoughts on this one...
david.
Search for medal of valor here.
It's the last link, as far as I can tell.
I don't see how section 308 is as bad as Dave Koppel feared? Am I misreading, or reading the wrong text?
It doesn't mention wiretapping, and where it does mention encryption:
(c) AMENDMENT OF SENTENCING GUIDELINES RELATING TO USE OF ENCRYPTION- Pursuant to its authority under section 994(p) of title 28, United States Code, the United States Sentencing Commission shall amend the Federal sentencing guidelines and, if appropriate, shall promulgate guidelines or policy statements or amend existing policy statements to ensure that the guidelines provide sufficiently stringent penalties to deter and punish persons who intentionally use encryption in connection with the commission or concealment of criminal acts sentenced under the guidelines.
It would seem that encryption used intentionally by criminals to hide the crime would have to face 'sufficiently stringent penalties'
Would this then only apply to those who have been accused *and* determined to be guilty of criminal acts 'sentanced under the guidelines'?
His fear of wiretapping comes from S2448RS, senate, not house...
Search for "wire, oral, and electronic communications", here.
It's section 8, under authority to...
However, there is no related section or subsection under HR46...
So the only problem I can tell is under HR46 section 304 clause (2)
(2) The criminal forfeiture of property under this subsection, any seizure and disposition thereof, and any administrative or judicial proceeding relating thereto, shall be governed by the provisions of section 413 of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 (21 U.S.C. 853), except subsection (d) of that section.'
Are there reasons to suspect this clause? It seems out of place, in a computer crime action...
Geek dating!
GPL Deconstructed
Another example would be the recent liberal Violence Against Women Act which attempted to make rape a federal crime based on the interstate commerce clause of the constitution.
A "Violence Against " law violates the 14th ammendment anyway. Not withstanding that the US has fought a war of independance and a civil war where state sponsered discrimination was part of the reason for the war.
Indeed the VAWA is a prime example of redundant legislation pushed by a special interest group in direct contravention of a written constitution. (Probably worstening an existing problem of sexist rape laws too.)
Sorry, I typed too quickly.
HR46 <strong>did</strong> go through without the amendment. Hatch added the amendment in the senate, so it has to go back through the house. It has not done so yet, and will not do so before January.
--
Forward, retransmit, or republish anything I say here. Just don't misquote me.
You will also find that the related bill is S.39, and that the Senate has not yet taken up the amended bill.
The short summary is, don't bother calling you Representative, call your Senator instead. Don't bother calling the White House, since Bush isn't there yet (and the odds of his voting against this is approximately nil.)
Thalia
And saying that encryption is a sign of criminal activity is like arresting people who buy ski masks. Preposterous.
Try "envelopes" instead of ski masks. The fastest way to illustrate to people why *I* prefer encryption is to use the postcard/envelope analogy.
"Obviously you have something to hide, since you keep sending your paper mail in envelopes ('enhanced privacy' envelopes, no less!), than using postcards for everything. What criminal activities are you engaging in?"
I think now's a good time to set up my own anon remailer, and start regularly sending encrypted traffic through it and the rest of the remailer network. Synchronously. Of varying sizes. So there's no way to prove that a particular message happens to be real and not just cover traffic.
Or it could be too late.
--
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." --H.L. Mencken
Section 304 (Score:-4, Offtopic) Bill invalidated.
- A.P.
--
* CmdrTaco is an idiot.
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
Is Mr. Hatch representing Utah residents? I mean honestly, there are a lot of conservative people who are afraid of the internet in Utah. But I think the important thing that we need to emphasize is that even the PEOPLE can have opinions which undermine our basic rights. That's why I love living in a republic. En mass, people are dumb, and make dumb decisions,... but with a republic, we get a lot more common sense thrown into the mix. Here is what I'm doing. I'm writing my congressman, and telling him what I think about Mr. Hatch's agenda. And that I would appreciate being represented on this issue.
Recently Mr. Hatch ran for re-election. It was clear to me how important it was to inform voters of the choice they were about to make. For those of you that don't know, Hatch was one of the primary sponsers of the CTEA, DMCA, and a bill to extend the life of the drug patent Claritin (as he used their corporate jet to fly around while running for president). He was planning on sneaking it through like this legislation till his ass got caught.
So, I went to the local Linux Users Group and stood up at the meeting (only a dozen people show up) and asked for help in organizing against Hatch. As I was talking it was apparent by the way they were looking at their shoes that there was complete disinterest in doing anything, and that they were going to vote for Hatch anyway.
The fact of the matter is that people vote for Hatch because "they are supposed to". One state representative went so far as to say that you "can't be a mormon and vote for a democrat at the same time," (exact words). Whether you are a mormon or not, Hatch is seen as "church endorsed" and the mormon church carries enough influence to affect any election they want to. There are many "heriditary republicans" that will vote republican on election day no matter what, without giving it a second thought. Also, there is a large segment that will vote for Hatch as he is pro-NRA, and everybody loves their guns here. Take all this together and you can see why he got re-elected by a landslide.
Utahns are being raped left and right by bad political representation on the local level as well. Our taxes and utilites are going up, as the legislature did away with the public commision that oversees utility rates (the bill was written by the local gas utility)
The only question is how hard do Utahns want to scream before they've had enough???
If you live in Salt Lake County, and want to organize, email me kphil@hotmail.com
Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
Rather than passing line-item veto, they should pass something that says any rider tacked on must be related to the main bill.
Congress says they tack things on to cut down on the amount of meetings they have to have about bills...so what.
They are getting paid a LOT of money and were elected cause they lied to say the wanted to make America a better place. Fine...get off your ass and out of meetings with special interest groups and do something.
Make the salary of a congressman equal to the average salary of the American worker, and then we'll get the right kind of people in there.
Perhaps we need a similar constitutional amendment for Federal legislation?
I do not deploy Linux. Ever.
Among these offenses are making false statements on student-loan applications or passport applications. 18 U.S.C. sec. 2516(1).
Great. So I can get my house wire-tapped, computer(s) seized, and e-mail (and all other 'electronic' communication) read because someone suspects that I made a false statement on a student loan application? This does not bode well...
What can we do to get this thing killed?
--Just Another Pimp A$$ Perl Hacker
El riesgo vive siempre!
The first time this is used will also be the first time it is challenged, and even if congress(!progress) approves, and the president approves, you can be certian the supreme court will not approve. Yes, I'm aware that Bush will likely pick up to 3 new justices, but even conservative justices cannot look at this bill without seeing the glaring constitutional problems engendered by it.
;-)
Secondly, can we make it so only people who read the articles can post? Maybe have 2 or 3 changing multiple choice questions they have to answer correctly about it before they are allowed to post.
-Adam
"After playing with Netscape 6 for a while, I've come to the conclusions it doesn't even support IPv4..."
- noted on an IPV6 mailing list.
Simple. They get to go back to their voters and say, "See? I voted to enhance your security and put the bad guys away. It's not MY fault it didn't make it into law." Happens all the time.
...phil
...phil
"For a list of the ways which technology has failed to improve our quality of life, press 3."
We need everyone to lobby congress and the senate for a constitutional ammendment requiring bill titles to accurately describe all of their contents. The use of a 'Medal of Valor' bill to snuff out more personal freedoms is the most ludicrous thing I have seen come out of DC in quite a while.
While we're at it, we should require certain types of laws, ie ones that stomp on our constitution, to garner a 2/3 vote in both the house and senate instead of just a majority.
Think outside the... Hey, where'd the friggin' box go?
You're probably a troll, but come on...if federal investigators have reasonable cause to believe any particular person is violating the law, they have all kinds of resources to plant bugs, trackers, wire-tap, put under surveillance etc - most of these techniques will work whether the target is using encryption or not.
What they WANT is to the ability to do this to anyone, anytime, while using a bare minimum of physical resources. I don't believe making it this easy to violate civil liberties is in the best interests of our society.
Just my $.02
Take the time, write something meaningful and express how much you dislike this bill.
Thanks in advance
And people are biased, and people are greedy, and people run the government. It always amazes me how some folks think that the govenment is somehow this "unbiased" organization that is out to protect our interests. Unfortunatly, its made up of those same dumb, biased, greedy folks that they claim they need protection from, except now those dumb, biased, greedy people have the ability to change laws to screw with us.
If you don't have anything nice to say, say it often.
- Ed the Sock
> > Everything needs limits, even freedom.
> I agree, and I propose we start with yours.
Guys, while I have stopped reading Slashdot regularly a while ago and certainly don't give a hoot about Karma (after reaching 50 it looses its charms), flagging this post as Flaimbait is a joke. Did you actually read what the guy wrote: "Everything needs limits, even freedom." What kind of idiotic statement is that? So let's take the analogy further: everything needs limits, even breathing. Heck, it WAS everything after all, wasn't it?
I just called my congressman's office (Joe Barton, fwiw), and according to them, there is some good news.
The bill passed the House on the 15th, so don't bother calling. However, a different version was passed in the Senate, which would mean that it has to get sent back (House & Senate must pass identical versions of the bill) to the House, which has already recessed. So, in order for it to get passed it would have to get reintroduced next year. We'll have to look into this next year. But there's no need to call. (It passed on the 15th)
"Sometimes a woman is a kind of religion, she can save your soul & set you free from all your sins" - Bad Examples
Since some of the posters here are harping about the name of the bill, I thought I would paste this from the bill text on the cryptome page referenced by the article:
The bill (H.R. 46), as amended, was read the third time and passed. The title was amended so as to read: To provide a national medal for public safety officers who act with extraordinary valor above and beyond the call of duty, to enhance computer crime enforcement and Internet security, and for other purposes.
Please read the content before commenting
Makes you wanna Ralph, more than ever!
It seems the "protect the people from themselves" mantra of big government and big business has finally started to complete its cycle of viciousnous.
I realize that sounds harsh, but I also realize that it is true. People have been programmed to believe that it is very, very important for the government (and the big businesses that are actually in charge of the government) to protect them from themselves and their neighbors. Personally that makes me sick. But there are so many people that actually believe in this sort of thinking that it is really difficult to get anyone to listen to you if you believe that freedom is more important than protection.
I realize that there is a fine line that must be balanced upon between freedom and protection in any well-run society, but lately it seems that the balance has swung completely over to the side of protection. No common sense is applied. No one cares about freedom. In fact, I've even seen arguments along the lines of, "What about my freedom to be sure that my child will never have to see a pornographic picture?" That isn't freedom you are asking for. You are asking for society to be in charge of raising your child.
I'm sorry if people see this as a fameish rant, but it is high time that people get interested in themselves again. You cannot expect to live a sheltered existence and still have freedom. You can have one or the other. And while the adults of this world were raised during the "enlightened child-rearing" age, when kids were taught that mommy and daddy would filter and sanitize all things for them, we must, at some point, convince those very adults that it is very important to make sure that you learn how to "filter" things for yourself.
As an example, I came from such a family. My parents believed (still believe, even at 27 years old with my own wife and family) that they could filter and sanitize the world as it came to me. I quickly learned that the world is not as safe a place as they wanted me to believe. And I managed, by fighting against the controlling instincts of my parents, to develop the ability to ignore things that were "bad" for me. I've never been drunk, I've never had the urge to smoke, I've never tried drugs, and the worst habit I have is playing guitar loudly. I managed to survive all the peer pressure, advertising campaigns and all the other garbage that goes on as a kid and not succumb to the "evils of the world". I developed my own mind, and learned to make my own decisions. But today that is considered bad. It is far more important to be told how to decide things by parents, teachers and eventually (once you outgrow those) the government and business where you work. It is a sad reality, and one that I hope reverses at some point.
This "tack a 'little' rule on a bill and hope it passes" garbage is something that isn't necissary. It was developed as a way to pass unsavory things by attaching them to more wanted things and has survived unchanged for a long time. Why we allow it is beyond me. I know the excuses that are given (it costs us less money and all that garbage), but shouldn't things be wieghed on their own merits? Why should we have to decided something purely on the basis of whether it is "attached" to something more important? This is what our government and the businesses that run our government want us to believe. Doesn't it seem ridiculous?
Imagine going to an interview and being told, "We can hire you, but only if you are willing to leave your wife, move out of your house, and live in a cardboard box". While this is an extreme example, you would have to decide between taking that job and losing everything else, or losing that job opportunity and keeping everything else. These are the sorts of ridiculous decisions that get made day in and day out by our congress. It just doesn't make sense. Line item veto you say? Line items shouldn't exists at all. It should be one item is one item, period. Otherwise it's just an excuse to pass more legislation that opresses the "idiot masses". The sad thing is, there are enough people that want to be oppressed now, in the name of protection, that we probably won't see it change. God, what a mess. I pray that someone finds a way to do something.
------------
Version: 5.5.3a
qTDKKD/773DLpla/98RTsUdd/3k5lsON39/66DAda
ieu93ERKSL34k/KoqcxCxKISS839DKd8Dk7LALd/K
kdla/a95alkDIkdKetUksMYdaclkaaeie93/3K2Kk
qTDKKD/773DLpla/98RTsASSi/4k5lllseETOON39
ieu93ERKSL34k/KoqcxCxMRKE839DKd8Dk7LALd/K
kdla/a95alkDIkdKetUksHATCHlkaaeie93/3K2Kk
qTDKKD/773DLpla/98RTs5lllseETOON39/66Da89
ieu93ERKSL34k/KoqcxCxCMKE839LALd/K3j93la3
kdla/a95alkDIkdKetUkslKdaclkaaeie93ladueq
-----END PGP MESSAGE-----