Slashdot Mirror


Ron Wyden Introduces Bill To Ban FBI 'Backdoors' In Tech Products

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."

63 of 109 comments (clear)

  1. This is bothersome by WindBourne · · Score: 4, Insightful

    When NSA was set up, it was to SPY on FOREIGN powers, while securing our own equipment. Now, it is bothersome that backdoors are being built into personal level equipment.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    1. Re:This is bothersome by Trepidity · · Score: 4, 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.

    2. Re:This is bothersome by Anonymous Coward · · 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?

    3. Re:This is bothersome by thedonger · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Maybe the question we should ask is, How did we reach a point where we need a bill to prevent the government from forcing its will on manufacturers?

      --
      Help fight poverty: Punch a poor person.
    4. Re:This is bothersome by tiberus · · Score: 1

      Uh, China.

    5. Re:This is bothersome by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    6. Re:This is bothersome by Opportunist · · Score: 3, 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.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    7. Re:This is bothersome by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    8. Re:This is bothersome by Hamsterdan · · Score: 1

      So that's where the company's name comes from...

      --
      I've got better things to do tonight than die.
    9. Re:This is bothersome by squiggleslash · · Score: 2

      Only with Hoover it really started to suck.

      That's true, the pre-Hoover FBI was a model of how a government agency should be: it solved every case before it, never harassed or hurt the innocent, was honest, scrupulous, efficient, dependable...

      Then J. Edgar Hoover became its founding Director and it all went to hell...

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    10. Re:This is bothersome by Wootery · · Score: 1

      This is something Eben Moglen discusses in his Freedom in the Cloud talks, which I strongly recommend.

    11. Re:This is bothersome by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      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 marriage or anything that serves well as something that gets people upset but doesn't mean jack shit in terms of actual real world effects.

      And please don't tell me that "independent" candidates matter in the slightest in a winner-takes-all system. Neither when it comes to president elections where for over a century now it has always been a matter between two candidates backed by the two parties (or, more bluntly, for as long as the whole system exists a matter between the two ruling parties with exactly 2 notable exceptions during VERY exceptional times), nor when it comes to elections for senate or congress where there MIGHT just once in a blue moon some independent candidate may win, who will instantly be reduced to insignificance by the other few hundred elected bodies from either party.

      I think it's kinda cute that you really think the US is a democracy. Or if you prefer, call your two party dictatorship a republic. It's neither democracy nor republic in anything but name only.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    12. Re:This is bothersome by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    13. Re:This is bothersome by Lord+Flipper · · Score: 1

      Uh, China.

      (d)uh.... /sarcasm

    14. Re:This is bothersome by beastofburdon · · Score: 1

      Sadly you are correct. We have had nothing more than political theater for at least the past 50 years, likely closer to 100.

  2. Any other agencies or just the FBI... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    ...because I can think of one that's going to do it nomatter WHAT the law says...

    1. Re:Any other agencies or just the FBI... by Strangely+Familiar · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The term banana republic spring to mind.

      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.

      --
      Join the IParty!
    2. Re:Any other agencies or just the FBI... by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The similarities between the Roman Empire and the US are actually stunning to behold.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    3. Re:Any other agencies or just the FBI... by lgw · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    4. Re:Any other agencies or just the FBI... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    5. Re:Any other agencies or just the FBI... by lgw · · Score: 1

      Fair point (and no, I haven't seen broadcast/cable TV in 10 years).

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    6. Re:Any other agencies or just the FBI... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      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...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  3. How long until he gets a phone call... by Grog6 · · Score: 4, 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.

    --
    Truth isn't Truth - Guliani
    1. Re:How long until he gets a phone call... by Immerman · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    2. Re:How long until he gets a phone call... by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      You derped all over yourself there. Your claim doesn't even survive the headline, you don't need to have read the summary. ;)

  4. "Make" or "convince" by jodido · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Wyden's proposal says agencies shouldn't be allowed to "make" manufacturers put in a back door. How about "convincing"? All big corporations are on the same side as the "agencies"--and the US Senate, for that matter.

    1. Re:"Make" or "convince" by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, 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.

    2. Re:"Make" or "convince" by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    3. Re:"Make" or "convince" by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      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.

    4. Re:"Make" or "convince" by ShaunC · · 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.

      --
      Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
  5. Mister Potato Head! by leftistconservative · · Score: 2

    Back doors are not a secret!

  6. The killer bees are already out of the jar by chitselb · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Phil Zimmermann's PGP already put crypto in the hands of the masses. It was a little cumbersome to use, even back in the '90s, but it's there. Anybody who wants good crypto, even on their phone, can probably find it and set it up. That group especially includes what I will call dedicated professional terrorists. FBI tapping into vanilla off-the-shelf iPhones will not catch them. This bill is about the common tech carried by the common man.

    --
    never ask a question you don't want to know the answer to
    1. Re:The killer bees are already out of the jar by timeOday · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The idea of encryption as a silver bullet is a myth. PGP accomplishes nothing on a compromised host (at either end), which is what this bill is about. (This on top of the fact that PGP accomplishes nothing on hosts on which it is not installed, which is to say, effectively all of them).

  7. Why only FBI? by Trachman · · Score: 4, 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?

    1. Re:Why only FBI? by Meneth · · Score: 5, Informative

      Actually, the bill text 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.

    2. Re:Why only FBI? by TubeSteak · · 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 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.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    3. Re:Why only FBI? by tburkhol · · 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 Warner to refuse the NSA? We need to close this conceptual loophole where data that traverses your ISP's network is considered the ISP's data.

    4. Re:Why only FBI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Actually, since the devices are made in China, there will be backdoors aplenty... but not backdoors accessible to the FBI.

    5. Re:Why only FBI? by Trailer+Trash · · 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 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 penalty provided in 56-26-123.

      Or a criminal example:

      66-11-206. Noncompliance by contractor -- Misdemeanor -- Penalties -- Owner remedies.

      (a) In the event that any materialmen's liens or mechanics' liens are perfected, filed or enforced under the provisions of part 1 of this chapter against any real estate for transactions covered under 66-11-203 and 66-11-205 and the contractor has not complied with 66-11-203 and 66-11-205 or if having technically complied with the provisions of this part has willfully, knowingly and unlawfully falsified any statements or fraudulently obtained any permission, the contractor commits a Class B misdemeanor.

      Again, random clicking. Now, let's see what happens when it's governmental employees being targeted by a law. Let's look at the open meetings law as an example:

      8-44-106. Enforcement -- Jurisdiction.

      (a) The circuit courts, chancery courts, and other courts which have equity jurisdiction, have jurisdiction to issue injunctions, impose penalties, and otherwise enforce the purposes of this part upon application of any citizen of this state.

      (b) In each suit brought under this part, the court shall file written findings of fact and conclusions of law and final judgments, which shall also be recorded in the minutes of the body involved.

      (c) The court shall permanently enjoin any person adjudged by it in violation of this part from further violation of this part. Each separate occurrence of such meetings not held in accordance with this part constitutes a separate violation.

      (d) The final judgment or decree in each suit shall state that the court retains jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter for a period of one (1) year from date of entry, and the court shall order the defendants to report in writing semiannually to the court of their compliance with this part.

      This section deals with open meetings and all that. Here's the "enforcement" part. Note that there are no civil or criminal penalties - if you're not happy you have to get a lawyer and sue and then you get a court order. Note that paragraph c says that "Each separate occurrence of such meetings not held in accordance with this part constitutes a separate violation" which is nice, but since there are no actual penalties for violating this statute it's kind of irrelevant. Where "kind of" means "completely".

      Now I know you're thinking "but after you pay a lawyer a few thousand dollars out of your own pocket to convince a judge to issue an order the people not holding open meetings will be held in contempt of court! Yeah, it's gonna suck for them!" Technically, yes, but try to find an example of that in real life.

      The only statute of which I'm aware that lays out specific penalties of any kind of rogue governmental workers is the Florida code, 790.33 (the "Joe Carlucci Uniform Firearms Act"). It's hardcore (as it *should* be). It gives the state and the state only the ability to regulate firearms. No local body may make laws that override the state's laws in this area, and no law enforcement officer may enforce such laws. Here's the money shot:

      (c)If the court determines that a violation was knowing and willful, the court shall assess a civil

    6. Re:Why only FBI? by jittles · · Score: 1

      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.

    7. Re:Why only FBI? by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
    8. Re:Why only FBI? by ic3m4n1 · · Score: 1

      It will be effective for Government and corporations to sell their wares. No we don't do that anymore our responsible government has made it illegal.

    9. Re:Why only FBI? by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      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.

    10. Re:Why only FBI? by Aighearach · · Score: 2

      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.

    11. Re:Why only FBI? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  8. Mister Potato Head! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Back doors are not a secret!

    Yeah, but you're giving away our best tricks!

  9. Re:I'm SURE Obama would sign such a bill by iggymanz · · Score: 2, 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. Start World War III? Ukraine should have become prospective NATO member, but they turned that down and so get to go things alone.

    balances the budget - not with Congress porkers we'll never do that

  10. It will never pass and not for the reasons by Stan92057 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It will never pass and not for the reasons many here might think. Other lawmakers will try to put other stuff/attachments in the bill that has zero to do with the bill. for example fund spy cameras for the police or fund something that will never pass, poisoning the bill. This is how all good bills are destroyed and making those who voted against the bill look like the evil doers when in fact they are voting against the bill because it contains SHIT.

    --
    Jack of all trades,master of none
    1. Re:It will never pass and not for the reasons by swb · · 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.

      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 of today, until the next batch of nude celebrities comes out) the current wave of unpopularity with law enforcement generally. "A child will die" is laughable in most cases, but it's possible that right now many people might look at that and say "Yeah, when you choke them or shoot them for writing on the sidewalk with chalk." Sympathy for the police isn't real high right now.

      The primary downsides are the length of the lame duck session and the lame ducks who don't bother showing up for roll calls. The session length can be mitigated by lame duck support that moves the bill forward enough that it can be easily resurrected in the next session without starting all over again.

    2. Re:It will never pass and not for the reasons by the_saint1138 · · 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.

    3. Re:It will never pass and not for the reasons by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      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.

    4. Re:It will never pass and not for the reasons by linuxguy · · 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.

      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.

    5. Re:It will never pass and not for the reasons by Anonymous Coward · · 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

      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.

      Wyden’s outrage, he said, stemmed from top-secret information he had learned as a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee. But Wyden (D-Ore.) was bound by secrecy rules, unable to reveal what he knew.

      Everything but his unhappiness had to be classified. So Wyden stuck to speeches that were dire but vague. And often ignored.

      Do you know who the Senator was who asked that question that showed that Clapper was lying? Go on. Guess.

      This is real the reason why the US government is in such sad shape. Even the people who are with-it enough to know there's a problem, are such morons they can't manage to figure out who their friends are on an issue.

    6. Re:It will never pass and not for the reasons by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      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 lot of things. All the secrecy laws kept him from doing was telling the public the specifics, but "telling the public" isn't how you get these things stopped. Nothing is still nothing.

      Do you know who the Senator was who asked that question that showed that Clapper was lying? Go on. Guess.

      Wow, he proved someone lied to congress. He didn't do anything to stop what they had been doing while they were doing it, but after they did it long enough he asked a question. I'm impressed.

      Even the people who are with-it enough to know there's a problem, are such morons they can't manage to figure out who their friends are on an issue.

      Yes, I agree. And to know who their friends aren't. The fact remains: Wyden could have easily written such a shotgun bill the day he found out what was going on, but he chose not to. He's not the friend you think he is.

  11. Re: You don't need to switch it on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I have a backdoor, but it's one way, so I use an Android phone.

  12. Re:I'm SURE Obama would sign such a bill by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

  13. Re:I'm SURE Obama would sign such a bill by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

    "punishes Syria for using chemical weapons against its populace", not our problem how a foreign government puts down internal rebellion.

    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 justification for the invasion of Syria years ago, plus intervention in Ukraine and some other places.....

    --

    "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
  14. Re: I'm SURE Obama would sign such a bill by MerlynEmrys67 · · Score: 1
    Since when do you "try" enemy soldiers in civilian courts during war?

    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 that we actually did declare war here, this isn't a police action). When the war is over we release the prisoners back to their home countries.

    To be quite honest here, many of the remaining prisoners at Gitmo can't be released because their home countries aren't stupid enough to take them back... We tried and they don't want them either. What should we do?

    --
    I have mod points and I am not afraid to use them
  15. Re:I'm SURE Obama would sign such a bill by iggymanz · · Score: 1

    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...

  16. Re:I'm SURE Obama would sign such a bill by iggymanz · · Score: 1

    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

  17. Re: by Aighearach · · Score: 1

    That's why the US intelligence agencies will always know what you're doing. You believe in security theater, home-made variety.

  18. It will fail. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It will fail because he's a freedom hating democrat!

  19. Re:If not the FBI, maybe one of the other agencies by beastofburdon · · Score: 1

    "EXTREMELY"

    I think the word you are looking for is "COMPLETELY"