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."

Comments

This is bothersome

[WindBourne]

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.

Re:This is bothersome

[Trepidity]

That's true as far as the NSA goes, but this is about the FBI, which was set up from the beginning to spy on Americans.

Re:This is bothersome

[thedonger]

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?

Re:This is bothersome

[Opportunist]

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.

How long until he gets a phone call...

[Grog6]

"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.

"Make" or "convince"

[jodido]

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.

Re:"Make" or "convince"

[ShanghaiBill]

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.

The killer bees are already out of the jar

[chitselb]

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.

Re:The killer bees are already out of the jar

[timeOday]

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).

Why only FBI?

[Trachman]

All of this would not be necessary, if existing laws would be enforced the way they were intended to. What is here not to understand " ... secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects".

The moment you start slicing and dicing and qualifying, the next moment another interpretation will be drafted that allows to bypass any new law.

The truth is people were spied all the times, but when it became easier to do so due to the technologies and the scale of spying became difficult to hide, then the new laws were carved out, "while the freedoms are protected".

Key lesson: calling the the laws in a manner opposite to what it does.
    Patriot act is not patriotic.
    Affordable care is not affordable to most of the working people.
    FBI backdoor ban, will put more resources on another secret agency which is not banned.

Why FBI, why DHS, why not all of them?

Re:Why only FBI?

[Meneth]

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.

It will never pass and not for the reasons

[Stan92057]

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.

Re:Any other agencies or just the FBI...

[Strangely Familiar]

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.

Re:Any other agencies or just the FBI...

[Opportunist]

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