Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by Soulskill on from the stop-doing-the-thing-you-might-want-to-start-doing dept.

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."

21 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.

      --
      10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
  2. 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
  3. "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.

  4. Mister Potato Head! by leftistconservative · · Score: 2

    Back doors are not a secret!

  5. 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).

  6. 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 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
    4. 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.

  7. 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

  8. 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.

  9. 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!
  10. 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.