Slashdot Mirror


Top Democratic Senator Will Seek Legislation To "Pierce" Through Encryption (dailydot.com)

Patrick O'Neill writes: Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) will seek legislation requiring the ability to "pierce" through encryption to allow American law enforcement to read protected communications with a court order. She told the Senate Judiciary committee on Wednesday that she would seek a bill that would give police armed with a warrant based on probable cause the ability to read encrypted data. "I have concern about a PlayStation that my grandchildren might use," she said, "and a predator getting on the other end, and talking to them, and it's all encrypted. I think there really is reason to have the ability, with a court order, to be able to get into that."

556 comments

  1. zOMG by Progman3K · · Score: 5, Funny

    THINK OF THE CHILDREN!

    --
    I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J
    1. Re: zOMG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Presumably her grandchildren would tell her the content of the hypothetically encrypted chat log - or is she concerned about what they might do to the predator?

    2. Re: zOMG by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1

      Send Alien after it is my bet.

    3. Re:zOMG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My first response to this rubbish!!

    4. Re:zOMG by wbr1 · · Score: 1

      My parole office and therapist asked me NOT to think of the children so much.

      --
      Silence is a state of mime.
    5. Re:zOMG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yes check out the Neural linguistic programming in full affect.. lucky for us we don't fall for it

    6. Re:zOMG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least the children will be more logical and numerate, having studied STEM. You can fist the O in XOR as much as you like but it is never going to break so she had better find a wiser solution to the sociological problem that she is trying to come to terms with.

    7. Re:zOMG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hillary is fucked up. fuck her.

    8. Re:zOMG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FUCK YOU, FEINSTEIN

    9. Re:zOMG by doccus · · Score: 1

      THINK OF THE CHILDREN!

      OK.. modded funny.. but it's sure as hell not. She's a living example of tyrants that will use that line to introduce every reprehensible violation of human dignity that she can scrape out of the crapper.

    10. Re:zOMG by doccus · · Score: 1

      THINK OF THE CHILDREN!

      OK.. modded funny.. but it's sure as hell not. She's a living example of tyrants that will use that line to introduce every reprehensible violation of human dignity that she can scrape out of the crapper.

      PS was that savage enough for y'all? I can do better.. after all. Or.. better yet.. the ball's in your court. Let''s see what /. is capable of.

    11. Re:zOMG by wyHunter · · Score: 1

      Well, the Democrats...the enemies of Freedom, strike again.

  2. Okay... by MightyMartian · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Perhaps the good Senator should reflect upon what King Canute actually intended to say when he made his demonstration about his inability to stop the tide.

    Mathematical algorithms, like so many parts of our physical universe, don't give a flying fuck about Congress. It's like trying to pass legislation to make Pi equal to 3.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    1. Re:Okay... by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 1

      >> algorithms, like so many parts of our physical universe, don't give a flying fuck

      As per Kerckhoff, the algorithms are already known. Politicians (most recently Clinton, Trump and now Feinstein) are either after our keys (e.g., key escrow) or trying to get us to always also use a known government key in our encryption.

    2. Re:Okay... by amRadioHed · · Score: 2

      They can just pass a law that says all computers are now quantum computers. Problem solved.

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    3. Re:Okay... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_Pi_Bill

    4. Re:Okay... by phishybongwaters · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Actually, no encrytion is perfect, it's mainly about making it take so long that it's not feasible to break. This ignores steath p2p networks and cpu sharing, as well as MASSIVE clusters and data centers dedicated to nothing but cracking the primes used. This, according to so very intelligent people, is how the NSA is getting through encryption, once you crack the prime, you are in. And sadly, a lot of applications use a cut and paste prime. All this nonsense about unbreakable encryption is a smoke screen to make you THINK they can't break it. The NSA sure as fuck can, and is, breaking encryption. None of this gets past the point that this twat wants the government to do her parenting for her. Worried about your kid talking to predators on their playstation? Set fucking parental controls on that shit like a normal human being. But it's not about the kids. It's never been about the kids. But it's doing a bang up job of pushing people to use encryption with a false sense of security, which is exactly what they want.

    5. Re:Okay... by Tailhook · · Score: 2

      Mathematical algorithms ... don't give a flying fuck about Congress.

      Do cryptographers give a flying fuck about prison sentences?

      --
      Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
    6. Re:Okay... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Mathematical algorithms ... don't give a flying fuck about Congress.

      Do cryptographers give a flying fuck about prison sentences?

      Not if they work for the NSA, PLA, or FSB!

    7. Re:Okay... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not the one's that aren't under US jurisdiction, nor does anyone retroactively for all the currently available cryptography implementations. I for one am not going to be uninstalling known good software to replace it with a spy approved variant.

    8. Re:Okay... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      or making 2+2 = 5

    9. Re:Okay... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      So you're saying my 4096 bit public/private key pair that I just generated is a cut and paste prime... from where exactly?

    10. Re:Okay... by edtice1559 · · Score: 4, Informative

      No, the OP isn't saying that at all. Public key encryption is computationally expensive so SSL implementation use asymmetric encryption in order to securely establish a session key. After that, faster, symmetric encryption is used. Unless you've been living under a rock, it has been discovered recently that the algorithms used to generate those symmetric keys were not well implemented and, therefore, the keys could be guessed. (Those also rely on a prime number which was cut and pasted which is what the OP is referring to here). It doesn't matter how secure the key exchange is if the key itself can be guessed! https://www.digicert.com/ssl-c...

    11. Re:Okay... by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 4, Informative

      Well there are forms of encryption that cannot be broken in this universe, and others that are probable unbreakable in any universe for even messages shorter than this sentence so that is good enough for me. There is the venerable one time pad (OTP) which can be shown to be unbreakable as at best all you could get were all possible messages of that length. The really neat thing about OTPs is that they are so simple you can teach them to a child and they can understand how they work and can do them with nothing more than paper and pencil. Also if one were to try and brute force keys on symmetric key encryption you would run out of energy in the universe at around 270 bits using conventional computers, or 540 bits using quantum computers, that is assuming you have an ideal computer. Even then at 540 bits all you have done is cycled the counter and haven't done any useful decryption. Unfortunately asymmetric key encryption schemes based on prime factorization, elliptical curves, or discrete logarithms are broken using quantum computers but are still pretty strong on conventional hardware. The good news is that there are some asymmetric key algorithms that appear to be unbreakable even on quantum computers.

      So to sum up I'm not really worried about things that will take longer than the heat death of the universe, and if the US government has access to substantially more energy than is available in this universe then we have bigger problems. The first that comes to mind is waste heat even with an ideal computer.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    12. Re:Okay... by unencode200x · · Score: 1

      If they're outside the US then they wouldn't be subject to US law. It may even adversely affect the US. Just like the US and certain US companies won't buy certain things from China because of similar concerns, other countries will do the same to the US.

      --

      Chance favors the prepared mind.
      Perfect is the enemy of good.
    13. Re:Okay... by pla · · Score: 1

      Do cryptographers give a flying fuck about prison sentences?

      The tools already exist, no new cryptographers required.

    14. Re:Okay... by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      You mean American cryptographers.
      All the smart people could just leave USA and further the state of the art elsewhere.

    15. Re:Okay... by bsdasym · · Score: 1

      Actually, a one time pad IS perfect -- provided it is generated in a truly random fashion, and your definition of perfect isn't irrational.

      I don't know who's telling you that "a lot of applications use a cut and paste prime", but they're probably wrong. Every standard application and library in wide use generates new primes every time it generates a new key. If it didn't, every key it generated would be the same, and this would be caught out fast.

      Far more common is that the application is lazy about testing that the prime it has generated is actually prime, and if it's not, then breaking the key is made much easier.

    16. Re:Okay... by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Yes, there are vulnerabilities, but that's a dangerous thing for anyone trying to decrypt information to rely on, since all it takes is for someone to repair the offending code or produce a better algorithm and then publish it in some way, and you're "window" is now closed again.

      You're still left with the fact that there are encryption algorithms out there that, if properly implemented, are effectively unbreakable before the heat death of the Universe, and no mere law is going to change that fact.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    17. Re:Okay... by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      So now we're going to make mathematics illegal?

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    18. Re:Okay... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One Time Pad is perfect, not even a God can break it.

    19. Re: Okay... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Two words: trade agreements.

    20. Re:Okay... by tsotha · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah, this is the problem. Lots of people are willing to beat their chests and say "fuck you" to the government now, but if, say, Congress passes a law making the use of unapproved encryption punishable by twenty years in the clink, 99.9% of these same people are going to knuckle under without a peep. We need to stop this kind of crap before it becomes law, and not depend on (other) people willing to take big risks.

    21. Re:Okay... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      She wants backdoors, not magic math.

    22. Re:Okay... by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      You're still left with the fact that there are encryption algorithms out there that, if properly implemented, are effectively unbreakable before the heat death of the Universe...

      Yes, but so far they remain undiscovered by man. Encryption is just another "sound barrier" to periodically break through. The cat and mouse game is indefinite.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    23. Re: Okay... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      One time pad is proved unbreakable

    24. Re:Okay... by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

      A true quantum computer with double digit numbers of qubits should be able to crack even the best encryption ridiculously fast. The NSA is believed to be heavily involved in quantum computer development. We need significantly harder encryption to beat quantum computers (in the sense of making it take too long). Right now very few of them exist and they are very expensive to run (have to be cooled with liquid helium) so there is very little risk but as price and availability come down that will change.

    25. Re:Okay... by cheater512 · · Score: 1

      Actually one time pads ARE perfect encryption. Utterly flawless.

    26. Re:Okay... by msauve · · Score: 2

      " It's like trying to pass legislation to make Pi equal to 3."

      Nothing wrong with that, it merely implies a requirement for non-Euclidean geometry.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    27. Re: Okay... by fustakrakich · · Score: 2

      Even with the "rubber hose"?

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    28. Re:Okay... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All encryption is breakable but 'best' forms of encryption cannot be broken 'efficiently' using commonly available schemes.

      The only solution that works for what Hillary and Cameron want for the masses is basically to allow only useless simple text obfuscation and message authentication. Of course the 'bad guys', can do basic binary operations and follow well documented best practices using off-the-shelf libraries rolling their own efficiently unbreakable encryption on top of any government mandated security-weakened platforms. Which means that both politicians should be repeatedly told to shut up on this subject as they obviously do not understand how it works.

    29. Re:Okay... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Back in the 1990s with ITAR in force, this same argument severely cut into US business revenue. Eventually it was tossed because crypto-as-munitions did not help anything.

      What are the terrorists going to do? If they know apps in the US are bungholed, they will use ones from other places. Remember -- some jihadis actually have a kit out with "trusted" programs for their own use... basically Tails Linux except with enhanced Arabic support.

      Of course, one can propose to disallow apps on all computers from outside the US, but how far does this cat and mouse game go?

      I can see it possible to place a DRM stack, enforced on routers (think NAC except WAN based where switches check the health of the downstream ones and devices before passing traffic for the MACs), and have a utility like an antivirus program, except searching for crypto programs, as well as forcing AppLocker like functionality on all nodes where only signed programs can work, for development work, one needs a FFL license (similar to buying a class 3 permit for a fully auto firearm), and so on. However, by turning all computes into consoles may be the wet dream of software makers, it ensures that no development work will happen in the US, further hamstringing security in the long run, because long-term, good computer people would have to be imported, as Americans wouldn't find a future in computers, similar to how textiles and meat packing are definitely not careers these days.

      Yes, it -can- be done to stop encryption by console-izing every piece of internet-connected gear, putting high penalties in place for... but the damage done by this will be far more than what terrorists can do in the long run, and further ensuring that the US falls into a backwater... and with the US, goes Europe (without the US in NATO, Europe is pretty much defenseless and easily overrun by almost any serious army. Saddam's army, pre-2003, could have easily pushed its way to England were it not for the fact that the US would stop them.

      So, the decision becomes... do we try to stop jihadis with more security theater which will cause more losses in productivity and offshoring, or will actually effective means be done to stop Daesh (such as attacking their oil fields. No oil, no resources or recruits.)

    30. Re:Okay... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They will take a different route. All U.S. information technology will be covertly backdoored. The backdoor allows for key material abduction. Use any cipher algo you like, they have you covered by means of subverting the kernel of you OS.

      Actually, this IS THE STATUS QUO. They just shit bricks that AAPL and GOOG remove the covert backdoors.

    31. Re:Okay... by slew · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If having encryption key w/o escrow is illegal, then only criminals will have encryption keys that are not escrowed.

      Interesting how that works out...

    32. Re:Okay... by TemporalBeing · · Score: 1

      I don't know who's telling you that "a lot of applications use a cut and paste prime", but they're probably wrong. Every standard application and library in wide use generates new primes every time it generates a new key. If it didn't, every key it generated would be the same, and this would be caught out fast.

      Well...that OpenSSL bug in Debian (due to a patch in the Debian version of OpenSSL to "harden" OpenSSL) that caused all the primes to be the same a few years back took over a year to come to the surface. So I wouldn't say it would be "caught out fast".

      --
      Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
    33. Re: Okay... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course, especially if you have lost the pad.

    34. Re: Okay... by edtice1559 · · Score: 1

      The OTP encryption algorithm is, of course, unbreakable. However, you have a huge key distribution problem. Also some OTPs generated during WWII were breakable because the algorithm to generate them wasn't quite random. (Humans created the OTPs by drawing letters from a bucket but tended to not like pads that didn't have distributions of letters similar to English words)

    35. Re:Okay... by budgenator · · Score: 2

      What I suspect is happening is they are trying to pass an inconsequential law that can't possibly do what it is supposed to do so nobody really opposes it, who is going to get excited over a law saying the government can try to decrypt comms that they can't decrypt? Later they use that as a precedence to get something more intrusive passed, like making it illegal to distribute encryption software w/o a backdoor.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    36. Re:Okay... by edtice1559 · · Score: 1

      Except that it seems that every time we think we've closed the last window, it turns out there is one more. So there are algorithms out there that, mathematically are unbreakable unless we can suddenly reverse some trap door functions. But there's no good reason to believe that we've closed the last of the windows to use your terminology. We might have gotten there with current implementations or we may get there soon. But if you're relying on today's encryption technologies to keep your data safe from sophisticated actors, you may also find that you're in for a big surprise.

    37. Re:Okay... by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      If anyone or group had the political power to make distribution of an algorithm illegal, they wouldn't need to pass some BS law like this first to do it.

    38. Re:Okay... by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 0

      Yeah, and we'll really be too scared to do anything when the government repeals the constitution and imprisoning people and torturing their families when they speak out. And the gun nuts that said we should have oppose gun control to provide the check against tyranny will turn out to be be right. And none of it will matter because the singularity will arrive and a super intelligent AI will simply conquer the entire planet with gray goo.

    39. Re:Okay... by Bite+The+Pillow · · Score: 1

      COPY AND PASTE you dildotron 6000. Cut and copy are not the same. Sure, blame OP, while I blame you for correcting everything but that.

    40. Re:Okay... by tricorn · · Score: 4, Informative

      The reference to re-using primes is about Diffie-Hellman key agreement protocol, which is susceptible to breaking discrete logarithms for a given prime. This is currently feasible with 1024-bit primes, and it is true that a significant number of web sites share the same prime modulus, which makes the expense required to break that prime worth it.

      This is a different problem from factoring the modulus used in an RSA key, which is what you're talking about.

      Breaking modern encryption algorithms without the key is infeasible, with or without quantum computers. The attacks are all going to be on the key agreement (often called key exchange) algorithms. RSA and DH are both vulnerable to quantum techniques, but there are other algorithms that appear to be safe.

    41. Re:Okay... by Jack+Griffin · · Score: 1

      Well apart from that time that they got cracked (yes I realise the encryption wasn't cracked, but the point is that any system as only strong as your weakest part (ie the human).
      As a security friend told me once, you have no password strong enough that I can't figure it out by jamming a screwdriver in your ear.

    42. Re:Okay... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The NSA doesn't need to break AES to know what I'm up to. Why would they, when they have an untold number of backdoors (probably software and hardware based) into every damn device in my house and office? These are people who can install undetectable and unremoveable firmware updates on HDDs, and who in all likelihood can walk right into any system through our modern day bullshit UEFI BIOSes. And so on, and so on, and so on...

      Is properly implemented encryption for all intents and purposes unbreakable? Yes. Does it really matter in a practical sense? No, because back and side channel attacks abound.

    43. Re:Okay... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about this: I take you up to the roof of a tall building, tie you to a chair, and have my large assistant dangle your son over the edge of the building by his foot. All of a sudden I don't have to brute force anything, because you're going to tell me whatever passwords I want to know, or little fatty goes splat.

      Keyloggers, trojans, and cameras will accomplish the same thing without any overt intervention.

      One time pads are also highly overrated, because proper randomness is actually quite hard to do, and there's still the matter of secure key sharing. Those are two things the NSA and their ilk have excelled at dealing with for decades.

    44. Re: Okay... by ememisya · · Score: 1

      You are correct. Turns out using physics was the way to go :P What sucks is a lot was built on the idea that it would take a powerful processor a long time to guess the magic number starting from scratch. We got no way to securely initiate a connection across the globe. It just isn't looking possible. We might be able to send entangled pairs across a zero kelvin corridor, but as far as I know the technology doesn't exist. Heat keeps vibrating those pairs out of sync, if we don't entangle, someone else could still intercept a polarized photon by entangling it in transit themselves which won't effect the measurement of the arriving photon. Also don't worry about the NSA so much, they'll get in one way or the other, that's kind of why they don't exist, but you'll need them in a national emergency. Also they seem to have stopped getting involved in public matters (sticking to foreign spying and helping everyone not blow up). I haven't heard anything recently about the parallel construction from various agencies, and erasing court documents. I think the Dark Knight is off having a bat burger.

    45. Re:Okay... by tsotha · · Score: 1

      Heh heh. Big Pharma must be making a mint off of you.

    46. Re: Okay... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Doesn't matter. If you do not surrender the key, you go to jail. We'll ask again in 5 years. If you have not changed your mind, we'll add 5 more years and keep doing that until you either change your tune or your life is over (mind you, with a 5 year conviction your life is already pretty much over). The reasoning is very simple and sound: if you're willing to go to jail in order not to disclose your keys, then you deserve to be in jail.

    47. Re:Okay... by sociocapitalist · · Score: 1

      Perhaps the good Senator should reflect upon what King Canute actually intended to say when he made his demonstration about his inability to stop the tide.

      Mathematical algorithms, like so many parts of our physical universe, don't give a flying fuck about Congress. It's like trying to pass legislation to make Pi equal to 3.

      Mandatory inclusion of backdoors, on the other hand, could be subject to such a law.

      A bad idea, of course, applied to any type of key:
      http://it.slashdot.org/story/1...

      --
      blindly antisocialist = antisocial
    48. Re:Okay... by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Many people in the legal profession have this delusion that they, via laws, make and shape reality. Of course they do not. They can provide motivation for certain behaviors, but that is it. Making a law does not change physical and mathematical reality one bit. But seeing that takes actual understanding and people like Feinstein do not have that.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    49. Re:Okay... by gweihir · · Score: 1

      You are quite wrong. For symmetric ciphers, a working universal QC just reduces the number of bits to half. AES-256 is secure against a QC just fine. For public key crypto, you need at the very least enough bits to fit the modulus in there. For example for 2048 bit RSA that is at least 2048 bits.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    50. Re:Okay... by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Indeed. Happens to any failing empire sooner or later: They become irrelevant before they die.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    51. Re:Okay... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Fortunately the cryto will just be developed in other nations. Some of those cryptographers might even leave and head for Europe or some other friendlier place.

      You can have some success preventing physical goods entering your country, but even North Korea can't stop ideas getting in.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    52. Re:Okay... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      There is the venerable one time pad (OTP) which can be shown to be unbreakable as at best all you could get were all possible messages of that length.

      Can we please stop repeating this tired old meme?

      There's a huge disconnect between what "unbreakable" means here and what people understand when they hear the word. A one-time pad is unbreakable in the sense that as a mathematical algorithm, it has certain information-theoretic properties -- namely that given a ciphertext all plaintexts are equally likely. It's a very easy proof, a very strong theoretical security property, and it's utterly useless in practice.

      When we use encryption, we use it in the real world, not in a Platonic paradise of pure algorithms. The security of the algorithm is important, in the same sense that a strong lock on your front door is important to keep out thieves, but if the lock is literally unbreakable the thieves will just attack a different part.

      1) Perhaps the lock would be unbreakable if used correctly, but the owner isn't, for the sake of convenience or because he doesn't know better. (This is actually very common for one-time pads; they're not easy/convenient to use, and cutting corners will invalidate that perfect security you just proved you had.)

      2) Perhaps the door itself is weak -- perhaps the implementation of the one-time pad is.

      3) Perhaps the windows are open (or easily opened) -- perhaps you can access/intercept plaintexts before they're encrypted, e.g. by breaking into a system.

      4) Perhaps you don't need even enter the house; perhaps you can mug the owner instead and still his wallet -- perhaps you can just beat someone with xkcd's 5 dollar wrench, or a National Security Letter, or something similar.

      5) You might even be able to enlist the help of someone who has access to the house -- to the plaintext --, be it by bribe, by threat, or by planting a member of your agency.

      There's many, many ways around an unbreakable lock. And there's many, many ways around an unbreakable cryptosystem.

      So let's please just stop advocating one-time pads as a solution to anything. In a practical sense, they're not.

    53. Re:Okay... by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      Apparently you are not aware of Diffle-Hellman. No need for me to even know the key as the computer can figure it all out. Dangle me all you want I can't provide the information you want.

      Also if I were to be security paranoid where I needed to use OTPs I would be making use of hardware random number generators on a system that was not connected to the outside world (eliminates trojans and keyloggers). If you are having to deal with cameras in you private home you are basically fucked at that point anyway so I'm not going to worry about that for this discussion.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    54. Re:Okay... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All encryption is breakable

      Not true. A properly used OTP is unbreakable without the key. Be careful with absolute generalizations.

      I agree with the rest of your post.

    55. Re: Okay... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or that marriage is only between two people who love each other, not what it has been defined as being between a man and a woman; which it has been for thousands of years.

    56. Re:Okay... by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      Nothing wrong with that, it merely implies a requirement for non-Euclidean geometry.

      Whcih, since Euclidean geometry is really only present in theory described by textbooks, is fine. The world is a non-Euclidean space.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    57. Re:Okay... by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      That makes both of us.... except I was being facetious.

    58. Re:Okay... by tsotha · · Score: 1

      Sure, sure. I imagine how it is when you finally get back to some semblance of normal. The embarrassment. The feelings of helplessness.

      Good luck with your problems.

    59. Re:Okay... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      please do I really hate my kids , its not legal for me to make them go splat but if you do it ...

    60. Re:Okay... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but if they take a Million computers and run them all at the sime time one is bound to crack the code. faling that they could always type 'bypass' or overide at the login prompt.

    61. Re:Okay... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "we'll really be too scared to do anything" - no you wont you will do something, You will be a typical american and turn your neighbour in for a cheesburger.

    62. Re:Okay... by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      I am not sure if English is your first language, but you should probably read this article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    63. Re:Okay... by tsotha · · Score: 1

      Now that is funny.

  3. Teh childrens by webnut77 · · Score: 0

    For the sake of the childrens. and puppies!

  4. Will somebody think of the children! by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · · Score: 4, Insightful

    A.K.A. "will somebody please add backdoors that will eventually get abused by the government and then used by thieves and hackers to do even worst shit."

    1. Re:Will somebody think of the children! by MightyMartian · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And how precisely will the US government force backdoors on open source or even private software? If I go out and make my own VPN software, then how will a mere law be able to "pierce" it?

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    2. Re:Will somebody think of the children! by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Because government people live in fantasy world?

    3. Re:Will somebody think of the children! by FictionPimp · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They will put you in jail for distribution of non-licensed encryption technology until you add that backdoor.

    4. Re:Will somebody think of the children! by idontgno · · Score: 1

      By clapping you in prison until you surrender the keys to "escrow"?

      Well-placed Hellfire missile strike?

      Obviously, if you don't agree, you're the ENEMY. And we know how that ends.

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    5. Re:Will somebody think of the children! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well-placed Hellfire missile strike?

      Fortunately for the Russians and the Chinese, there were back doors to pierce through the encryption that governs the communications from the base to the drone that carried the missile.

      Unfortunately for many of us, we're working in the American software industry.

    6. Re:Will somebody think of the children! by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 3

      They can't, which is why the next logical step would be to ban sale and use of encrypted communication which the government can't snoop on, like some in the UK have proposed.

      Because we all know that all we need to stop those terrorists is a well thought-out law.

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    7. Re:Will somebody think of the children! by Triklyn · · Score: 1

      i have this wrench, the password is, however hard i need to hit you that's between too-painful and non-fatal.

      it's a very difficult game, so i think i'm gonna need a bunch of whacks at it.

    8. Re:Will somebody think of the children! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >> Because we all know that all we need to stop those terrorists is a well thought-out law.

      Well shit, no wonder they're winning!

    9. Re:Will somebody think of the children! by Dragonslicer · · Score: 2

      You're assuming that the back door won't be broken open by thieves faster than government can abuse it.

    10. Re:Will somebody think of the children! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because we all know that all we need to stop those terrorists is a well thought-out law.

      It always floors me when people think this, then get upset that things don't work perfectly. Laws are human constructs - the very best law will always have loopholes and flaws. Nothing works perfectly.

      Even shifting to the "laws" of physics (trying to accurately describe simple, natural phenomena without emotions or shitty logic) we have to fight hard to find constructs that are 100% accurate and complete.

    11. Re:Will somebody think of the children! by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

      Have two passwords, one to reveal animated ponies and R-rated porn, another for the real deal.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    12. Re:Will somebody think of the children! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      https://xkcd.com/538/

    13. Re:Will somebody think of the children! by xtronics · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Uhh - I heard they have already added back doors - called UEFI (or EFI which often includes (not making this up) secure boot )

      Now the people who told me this could all have been lying. Yet I noticed that Coreboot can no longer support any motherboards that are less than 5 years old. Where can I get a copy of a BIOS that secure government computers use?

      In order to comply with PCI one has to jump through a bunch of hoops - but what if you really think the system isn't secure due to the BIOS? Why do we need proprietary BIOSs of closed source that can write to the harddrive - connect to the network? What about the firmware on the harddrive? Or even the microcode for the CPU?

      I know the way engineers think - 'I'm so smart that no one will find this back door' - but what if the bad guys threaten someones family? Will they get the secret sauce? Or perhaps there are people that work for spooks in other countries that have the resources to disassemble multi megabyte BIOS?

       

    14. Re:Will somebody think of the children! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it's for private use between 2 or more machines he owns for private communication over the public Internet (e.g. between his home and office network), they can't do squat.

    15. Re:Will somebody think of the children! by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      Simple, they will simply outlaw the use of any unauthorized cryptographic system. You're choices will be soft Clipper 2.0 or plaintext. You do something different and risk prosecution. It won't matter if what you actually ciphered was your grandmothers secret family recipe for peanut butter cookies, or the list of targets you cased for ISIS your ass is going to the federal clink either way.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    16. Re:Will somebody think of the children! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just wait until systemd replaces the bios.

    17. Re:Will somebody think of the children! by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      Then I'll just publish a book .

      --
      Time to offend someone
    18. Re:Will somebody think of the children! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What really needs to happen to these uneducated politicians is education. Someone needs to sit down with them and educate them that if you make encryption have any sort of backdoor, the bad guys can and will be able to get in regardless. Sure a court order sounds nice for the folks playing nice. Just like locking the doors on your house. If the bad guys want into your house, they'll break a window along with bypassing any sort of "security" system you have on your house.

    19. Re:Will somebody think of the children! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Feinstein was mayor of San Fransisco, so she knows a lot about back doors.

    20. Re:Will somebody think of the children! by jdavidb · · Score: 1

      They will put you in jail for distribution of non-licensed encryption technology until you add that backdoor.

      Not if you distribute it on an anonymous encrypted network.

    21. Re:Will somebody think of the children! by Triklyn · · Score: 1

      :) hey, i'm not letting you go until i got what i want. And i know you have it.

      so you give me what i want, or we keep adding coins to this game of whack-a-mole until the mole dies.

    22. Re:Will somebody think of the children! by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 2

      Sure they can. They're called laws. If the Internet is "public", they can attach laws to it's use.

      Car analogy: I can't go driving my car around at night on public roads without the headlights on. But if I want to do so on a private road, that's between me and the owner of the road.

    23. Re:Will somebody think of the children! by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 2

      But it's worked out so well with those TSA master keys for locked luggage--oh, wait...

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    24. Re:Will somebody think of the children! by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · · Score: 2

      I wonder how many people die each year because of ISIS and how many die because of peanut allergies.

      Lock up your grandmother? Damn right! She was making bio-weapons!

    25. Re:Will somebody think of the children! by operagost · · Score: 1

      Government likes to create problems, then position themselves as having the only solution to those problems (which in turn creates further problems).

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    26. Re:Will somebody think of the children! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      SystemD snuck into my house in the middle of the night and replaced my dog. It's fucking bullshit.

    27. Re:Will somebody think of the children! by MachineShedFred · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yeah, no.

      UEFI is just a new standard of firmware that replaces BIOS. It does many things better than BIOS. It's why your new PC boots so fast. It gives hardware OEMs the ability to add pre-OS drivers for different hardware. Largely, it's a good thing.

      "SecureBoot" is just a module for EFI that (poorly) attempts to prevent boot loader rootkit hacks. A lot of people like to bitch and gripe about SecureBoot because Microsoft played with the idea of requiring it to be there in order to run Windows 8+, but you can still load Windows through the good' ol EFI Compatibility Service Module. Oh, and you can disable it on basically any motherboard I've ever seen, including ones from OEMs like Lenovo, HP, and Dell. Many people were afraid that SecureBoot would require a 'jailbreak' of an EFI PC in order to load whatever OS you want on it, and these rumors are completely unfounded except for in the most marginal circumstances. Just turn it off if you want to do any of that.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    28. Re:Will somebody think of the children! by ImprovOmega · · Score: 1

      That works so great when the source code is mirrored across 50 million computers that already downloaded it! We can lock up 20%+ of the population for using unauthorized software! What could possibly go wrong!

    29. Re:Will somebody think of the children! by Krojack · · Score: 1

      Each day we come closer to living like those in North Korea.

    30. Re: Will somebody think of the children! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Industry loves to cut corners and deliver products that lack security and are woefully insecure.

      Back to you good citizen.

      stop bashing the government

    31. Re:Will somebody think of the children! by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 0

      I noticed you still haven't created a Slashdot account. Great news for you, though. SystemDouche is still available!

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    32. Re:Will somebody think of the children! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When they mandated that Radioscanners block frequencies, the old ones would have a jumper wire that you had to cut to unblock the entire spectrum. Putting a bufferoverflow in your encryption application that corrupts the 3rd party public key(rendering their private key useless) would be pretty funny, and since it relies on undefined behavior: your ass is covered.

      Because software is covered under the first amendment, distribution of secure crypto in book form will mitigate any attempts to outlaw it. What they COULD do is mandate that the processor's/hardware contain backdoors or ban compilation of secure crypto(!free speech). They already have the legislative tools required to do this via the USML/ITAR but they want to mandate backdoors instead of weak encryption.

      Personally: I want them to ban secure encryption. Hackers will have a field day and they'll end up with lots of egg on their face when VISA/Mastercard/the banking industry get looted by Blackhats.

      There is NO WAY to distribute the private key to law enforcement in such a way to make this concept useful that would not be simultaneously abused for LOVEINT/result in a DirectTV/CSS/Xbox/TI-83 style key leak.

    33. Re: Will somebody think of the children! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure you can. You'll just be cited if you're caught.

      See if you can figure out the applicability to the subject in question.

    34. Re:Will somebody think of the children! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I remember when Secure Boot was new, laptops (not desktop motherboards) from some manufacturers didn't provide an option to turn it off. That violates the spec that explicitly states it must be possible to disable by the user, and as far as I remember, it was Microsoft who got the manufacturers to comply with the spec and provide the option to turn it off. (Ironically, Microsoft is usually blamed for that whole clusterfuck.)

      From what I heard, Microsoft threatened to pull the "Made for Windows" (or whatever it actually says) "seal" from any non-compliant devices. Feel free to correct me, I only vaguely remember the commotion and I've had a couple of beers.

    35. Re:Will somebody think of the children! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Assuming I even have any information to give you (and you cannot prove that I do), why should I trust you to stop after I give it?

    36. Re:Will somebody think of the children! by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      By closing up the internet in some way?

    37. Re:Will somebody think of the children! by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      Yeah but once you give them the keys, they will just kill you and your whole family. You being the only one who knows your keys is the only thing keeping you alive at that point.

    38. Re:Will somebody think of the children! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, but it's by a court order so it's legit. Of course it will be a FISA court order, which comes with a 97% court approval rate. Also these can be granted retroactively, which makes even the remaining 3% denial rate irrelevant and worse, something of a joke.

      In fact let's just cover the whole mess up with a nifty National Security Letter, which makes it a crime to even talk about a directed release to a lawyer. Yeah, that's the ticket!

    39. Re:Will somebody think of the children! by rastos1 · · Score: 1

      And they will change the 1st Amendment to allow passing a law that makes your book illegal. You think that can't happen? Just look around you.

    40. Re:Will somebody think of the children! by sociocapitalist · · Score: 1

      Because government people live in fantasy world?

      Or at the very least pander to constituencies who live in a fantasy world.

      --
      blindly antisocialist = antisocial
    41. Re:Will somebody think of the children! by Stumbling+Sober · · Score: 1

      The car is the packet and must be visible on the network in order to be delivered to the correct address. However, that car is hauling a locked safe in the trunk. There's nothing illegal about that. If your car is intercepted, they should need probable cause and a warrant to open that safe.

    42. Re:Will somebody think of the children! by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      The government opts not to, but could, require headlights on private roads, with or without the owner's blessing.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    43. Re:Will somebody think of the children! by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      Well, then you would go to jail for accessing an anonymous encrypted network

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    44. Re:Will somebody think of the children! by Khashishi · · Score: 1

      That was a silly move that doesn't make any sense. If I had design documents and requirement specs for ICBMs, I'm pretty sure the gov't wouldn't let me just publish them in a book under the guise of free speech.

    45. Re:Will somebody think of the children! by Khashishi · · Score: 1

      Well if the law is unjust then a recourse is to break the law. And make a big a big fuss of it.

    46. Re:Will somebody think of the children! by JasterBobaMereel · · Score: 1

      How do they put people in Jail in the USA for writing software in another country, to be used in another country

      Do they put people in jail who use it in the USA. ... and what do they do when either everytone is in Jail, or the only country using easily hacked encrytion ...

      --
      Puteulanus fenestra mortis
    47. Re:Will somebody think of the children! by xtronics · · Score: 1

      "UEFI is just a new standard of firmware that replaces BIOS."

      No it is not. That simply is not true. It is a lot more - It is a little OS of it's own that has all the tools to compromise the OS you install.

  5. So WHY does she want to destroy American IT by Bruce66423 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Because it will rapidly become de rigeur for companies that are serious to use encryption that can't be broken on that basis. US companies can be part of that - or watch as their meal ticket evaporates...

    1. Re:So WHY does she want to destroy American IT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's a bit late to cry over spilled milk. We already are actively avoiding USA-based SaaS systems whenever possible, and searching alternatives from the Free World after the NSA debacles made it plain how great seizure powers local police has there. (The fact NSA can break into just about any device isn't as worrysome. That takes effort and has a much lower chance of spilling our data en masse to our competitors)

      Granted, a law like the suggested would speed our search up considerably.

    2. Re:So WHY does she want to destroy American IT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hopefully Russia will step into the void.

    3. Re:So WHY does she want to destroy American IT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh boy, they have AUTOMATED hacking tools. "hacking" does not necessarily imply a guy banging on a keyboard all the time just to open one computer.

      Rather, a Larry Wall-class of computer scientist develops a Weapons System which can penetrate entire IP Address range subsets with some sort of malware for Linux, OSX, Windows, Android, iOS, Solaris. The only typing is when they enter the IP Address range. Then they go to lunch and after lunch they have reconnoitered* 215000 computers.

      Then they bring on a false flag and some General authorizes "penetrate the entire internet".

      *either installed a key logger or abducted key material

  6. All I have to say is by istartedi · · Score: 4, Informative

    2345 A3DF 5782

    --
    For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
    1. Re:All I have to say is by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 4, Funny

      2345 A3DF 5782

      "Be sure to drink your Ovaltine"

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    2. Re:All I have to say is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Burma Shave

    3. Re:All I have to say is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I know that! It's UNIX!

  7. Or you know... by i.r.id10t · · Score: 5, Informative

    "I have concern about a PlayStation that my grandchildren might use," she said, "and a predator getting on the other end, and talking to them, and it's all encrypted. I think there really is reason to have the ability, with a court order, to be able to get into that."

    You could be involved with your kids and *you* be in charge of who they are communicating with via your playstation

    --
    Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
    1. Re:Or you know... by Tokolosh · · Score: 5, Funny

      We urgently need the technology to hear the voices in the senator's head.

      --
      Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
    2. Re:Or you know... by tiberus · · Score: 1

      Or for the times when you aren't there, it would be more reasonable for the parent/guardian, to be able to log the traffic.

      Pretty sure by the time the FBI becomes involved, it already too late from the parents POV...

    3. Re:Or you know... by PhrostyMcByte · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You could be involved with your kids and *you* be in charge of who they are communicating with via your playstation

      I don't have kids, but every interaction I've ever had with them has taught me that when you're not looking, they're doing everything they can to test their boundaries. Keeping watch over them 24/7 is not a realistic ask.

      Regardless, this is not a reason to weaken encryption. If watching what their kids do online is the only concern, a parental control mode that does logging should appease even the most capable of helicopter parents.

    4. Re:Or you know... by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "I have concern about a PlayStation that my grandchildren might use," she said, "and a predator getting on the other end, and talking to them, and it's all encrypted. I think there really is reason to have the ability, with a court order, to be able to get into that."

      You could be involved with your kids and *you* be in charge of who they are communicating with via your playstation

      Not only that, but kids have ALWAYS had clandestine communications. When Senator Feinstein was a teenager, I'd bet a lot money that she went for a walk alone with her friends sometimes. You go to the park, you walk in the woods or the meadow (in more rural areas), or whatever. Those communications may not have been formally "encrypted," but they were the private communications of the kids nonetheless. Back then, if you proposed having someone walk around with a microphone or tail your kid to monitor all communications, just in case something bad might happen -- well, people would think you were insane.

      And, you know what? Child abduction rates and violent crimes against kids were likely greater back then. At least for the past 40 years or so since child crime statistics have been accurately kept, the trend has basically been down, down, down. And the vast majority of such crimes are perpetrated by family members and close family friends, not random strangers -- met on the internet or elsewhere.

      Yes, it is true that your kids or grandkids may have greater contact with strangers through the internet and electronic communications than in previous generations. And that's why monitoring what they do IN PERSON is important. If they're in your house, watch what your grandkids are doing. Ask who they're talking to on the Playstation if it seems weird. Be involved.

      This nonsense about justifying encryption backdoors is coming from a combination of completely out-of-whack fears with little basis in reality. Child crime is down, but our fears of it are higher than ever (particularly when it comes to strangers, who are the least likely to harm your kids). Terrorist acts are few and far between (despite recent activity), yet we're more worried about them rather than actual dangers that are hundreds or even thousands of times more likely to kill us (driving, obesity and other "bad" health habits, etc.).

      People have always had fears driven by sensationalism -- see Renaissance paintings of Hellfire and read old-fashioned "fire and brimstone" sermons, for example. These modern fears are almost as loopy.

    5. Re:Or you know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I have concern about a PlayStation that my grandchildren might use," she said, "and a predator getting on the other end, and talking to them, and it's all encrypted. I think there really is reason to have the ability, with a court order, to be able to get into that."

      You could be involved with your kids and *you* be in charge of who they are communicating with via your playstation

      I could not agree more with this statement..

      Too many parents are hands off toady, and this is what you get from it.

      You made the lids, you should look after them.

    6. Re:Or you know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You could be involved with your kids and *you* be in charge of who they are communicating with via your playstation

      They aren't even HER kids. Maybe she should start by talking to their Parents.

    7. Re:Or you know... by khasim · · Score: 5, Insightful

      When Senator Feinstein was a teenager, I'd bet a lot money that she went for a walk alone with her friends sometimes. You go to the park, you walk in the woods or the meadow (in more rural areas), or whatever.

      Not any more. Now, the cops can be called if some IDIOT sees your kids playing by themselves. Now you drive your kids everywhere to meet other kids in controlled environments.

      And that is considered NORMAL BEHAVIOUR.

      See also Feinstein's defense of government spying on citizens. But her rage when one department spies on another department.

    8. Re:Or you know... by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

      You mean the lobbyists that infects Washington.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    9. Re: Or you know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just feed the kids chocolate and make them fat. No self respecting pedo is going to go after a fat kid when theres better looking ones available......

    10. Re:Or you know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bbbbbbut that would require her to actually *gasp* spend time with them and actually give a shit about them, rather than parade them around town when it suits her, (such as making people feel guilty for not doing her job for her), and have that free time for herself. (Because most Americans, want everything to be done for them, including learning about and providing / implementing protection from evil computer criminals.) /sarcasm

      On a more serious note, the US IT industry should be seriously considering moving out of the country right now. It's obvious that anything made by US companies is going to be completely compromised at some point in the near future. If the US IT industry wants to survive this transition and remain in the global market, they had best be making exit strategies right now. For the people in the US, best be stocking up on the old hardware because in a few years you won't be able to find something that YOU control that won't steal personal info, and contact the mothership on a regular basis. For the people outside the US, 1. Take this as a warning, don't let your governments get stupid ideas like this in their one dead brain-cell heads. 2. Steer clear of all US made IT products. You cannot trust them, the US government has dictated as such. Only once the big budget IT industry in the US collapses as a result of this crap, will the government listen, but by then (fortunately for all of us), it will be too late. As the US will have lost not only the industry influence position it once had, but also all trust and credibility that would allow them to rebuild it.

      And if Sen. Feinstein or any other congress critter just so happens to be reading this:

      You are doing this to yourselves. You could have easily kept your spying and data collection hidden by maintaining radio silence. Instead, you chose to flat out declare open hostilities against all computer users of the world. You chose to make your intent known to your enemies. You showed all of your cards and threw them on the table to declare victory, but you did so way too late, and without knowing the cards held by the other players. You will lose this fight, not just because of your ignorance, but because the only way for you to win now is to pay for your victory in blood. There will be people who say no, and fight against you. And you will lose, because they have and will continue to have, better equipment than you for the fight. You will lose because you will create your own weakness, your own Achilles-heel, and you will fall because of it. Congratulations on your future loss, because you've earned it.

      Captcha: complied

      Heh, even the computer karma gods know when you've been owned....

    11. Re:Or you know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which one?

    12. Re:Or you know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not likely if they're teenagers.

    13. Re:Or you know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I have concern about a PlayStation that my grandchildren might use," she said, "and a predator getting on the other end, and talking to them, and it's all encrypted. I think there really is reason to have the ability, with a court order, to be able to get into that."

      Bad analogy, you don't need to be the man in the middle if you are already on one end of an encrypted communications link as you can already read it. Just like the bad legislation attempts in the 90's, porn does not flow into people's homes through the internet, you have to actively look for it. Likewise terrorism recruitment does not flow into people's homes through the internet, you have to look for it. But what do you expect from Dianne "I need to know your business" Feinstein, she is as psychotic as Barack "I want your guns" Obama.

    14. Re:Or you know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's not like sony and the game publishers don't keep logs of chats, game activity, purchases, account history and logins and other data... and proper authorities can't and have never received that information from them before.... wtf. seriously? *that's* your argument? fuck off, feinstein.

    15. Re:Or you know... by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      I think there really is reason to have the ability, with a court order, to be able to get into that.

      I don't understand how she thinks the decryption algorithm is supposed to know whether or not there is a court order for that communication. But, I'll admit, if she can devise an algorithm that will only decrypt a communication either in the presence of a valid decryption key, or the presence of a valid lawfully-obtained court order, then I'm willing to consider the proposal. If she's counting on people trusting the government to not abuse a backdoor, or counting on that backdoor staying hidden, then that ship (with Captain Snowden at the helm) sailed a long time ago, with all of the trust in the government not to abuse its power held securely in the cargo hold.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    16. Re:Or you know... by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Not likely if they're teenagers.

      True, but the age is rising all the time. Did you know that it's now grounds for arrest if you leave an 11-year-old alone in a car while you go into a store?

      Apparently an 11-year-old (who requested to stay in the car, as I often did at that age too when my mom went shopping) might be in danger of suffocation or overheating or whatever. Note in the article: Police said the car interior temp had risen to 85 degrees (!!) before they arrived, apparently just in the nick of time. And apparently the police must have determined that the 11-year-old had no other possible course of action (with that temperature rising to... moderately warm... levels), like rolling down the window, opening the door, or... heavens -- going into the store and joining her mother!

      In a few years, this will be moved up to teenagers. Particularly if there's some sort of high-profile abduction or something. It doesn't matter how rare it is.

      And if you think this arrest is an isolated case, you'd be wrong. Look around a bit and you'll see plenty of cases of parents being arrested in recent years for letting preteens (9-, 10-, 11-year-olds) walk alone to/from a local neighborhood park or playing there alone. Heck, parents have even been arrested when an 11-year-old boy was alone playing in HIS OWN YARD for a while.

      (By the way, of course leaving young kids in a locked car is a horrible thing, and many do die each year. But presumably an 11-year-old has a few more options than being stuck in a car seat until they die of heat stroke.)

      Just in the past couple years, the age for arresting parents for "endangering" them by leaving them alone for a few minutes has risen from somewhere around 7 or 8 up to at least 11. Teens aren't that far off.

    17. Re:Or you know... by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      I have a concern that she is letting her grandchildren walk around in an open air market where anything can and will be sold, without supervision.

      Does she just drop them off at the door to the mall and fuck off to the nearest bar for a martini? Why is she doing that with the Internet?

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    18. Re:Or you know... by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 1

      Teens aren't that far off.

      Actually, I was wrong. Turns out Illinois has now passed a law which makes it illegal (potentially) to leave any child under 14 home alone.

      So, that covers 13-year-olds. It's officially illegal to leave your teenager alone in some states.

      Granted, the law states that the parents must be neglectful or disregard the child's welfare by leaving a 13-year-old alone, but if the cases I cited in my previous post are any clue to how police will actually behave, the reality is that they'll arrest parents (and potentially take kids away into foster care) if there's any excuse.

      Basically, it's easier to give into the concerns of the noisy neighbor or the local busybody and arrest the parents than to try to justify leaving the parents alone despite the complaint. If something DID happen to the kid (unlikely, but it could happen), the police would get blamed. So they call CPS and slap on the cuffs.

    19. Re:Or you know... by budgenator · · Score: 1

      We urgently need the technology to hear the voices in the senator's head.

      We can't tell if it's encrypted or just gibberish.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    20. Re:Or you know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You could be involved with your kids and *you* be in charge of who they are communicating with via your playstation

      I don't have kids, but every interaction I've ever had with them has taught me that when you're not looking, they're doing everything they can to test their boundaries. Keeping watch over them 24/7 is not a realistic ask.

      Regardless, this is not a reason to weaken encryption. If watching what their kids do online is the only concern, a parental control mode that does logging should appease even the most capable of helicopter parents.

      If wood chippers, camouflaged like kiddie slides, are banned, then only criminals will have woodchippers!

    21. Re:Or you know... by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 1

      And if anything happens to the child the parents have access to the PlayStation so they can give the police access to it without a warrant in order to see who the child was talking to. You don't need to put back doors into encryption for this.

    22. Re:Or you know... by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      "we've tried and tried, but we can't find any data in there. its not teletype, its not FAX, its not ebcdic or SIXBIT, its not slow-scan tv, its not any kind of modem signal we have seen before. we -think- it could be a teenager flapping his lips between his finger, making some kind of noise, but we still are not sure."

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    23. Re:Or you know... by safetyinnumbers · · Score: 1

      Wait, are chats not logged? Maybe it depends on each game, but I wouldn't have any expectation of encryption in games, let alone OTR-style end-to-end encryption with secure key exchange and forwards secrecy.

      Or is this about some native PS4 messaging service?

      I'd expect chat logs to be kept, if only to follow up on reports of phishing, abuse, etc.

    24. Re:Or you know... by UnderCoverPenguin · · Score: 1

      Turns out Illinois has now passed a law which makes it illegal (potentially) to leave any child under 14 home alone.

      When I was 6, my "baby sitter" was a 12 year old girl who lived nearby. I wonder how many of the legislators had similar experiences that they are now denying to todays' young children?

      --
      Don't try to out wierd me, three-eyes. I get stranger things than you, free with my breakfast cereal. --Zaphod Beeblebr
    25. Re:Or you know... by UnderCoverPenguin · · Score: 1

      Games use client-server encryption to make it difficult to cheat. Carrying in-game chat over that encryption costs them nothing extra. Enhancing that to provide end-to-end chat encryption is a small cost beyond that. Some of my friends tell me that some games explicitly offer OTR-style end-to-end encryption.

      --
      Don't try to out wierd me, three-eyes. I get stranger things than you, free with my breakfast cereal. --Zaphod Beeblebr
  8. Democrats are authoritarians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Some republicans are too, but I wonder if there is an area of life that politicians, especially Democrats - don't want to control?

    1. Re:Democrats are authoritarians by kqc7011 · · Score: 2

      Say's a lot that she is a "Top Democrat Senator".

      --
      Passionately Indifferent
    2. Re:Democrats are authoritarians by Tokolosh · · Score: 1

      All Democrats.
      All Republicans.

      --
      Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
    3. Re:Democrats are authoritarians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. Women have the right to choose - well, the right to choose one thing.

      Everything else... not so much.

    4. Re:Democrats are authoritarians by Vermonter · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The thing with the Democrat party is that they feel they can solve (or at least greatly improve) all of our problems if they just pass enough legislation. This is about as stupid as a libertarian who says that getting rid of all regulation will solve all of our problems. The truth is the best solution is somewhere in the middle, but most people are too lazy to try to find it. And those that try are considered the enemy by the two parties because they are neither left enough nor right enough.

    5. Re:Democrats are authoritarians by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 2

      Seniority can be a bitch.

    6. Re:Democrats are authoritarians by ItsJustAPseudonym · · Score: 1

      Please mod this person up.

    7. Re:Democrats are authoritarians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The way senate senrules work, that just means that she's an *old* DEMOCRATIC senator.

      But given your own "Democrat Senator" snark; you can be safely dismissed as just a partisan hack anyway. Childish name-calling only discredits yourself, not the person you're attacking.

    8. Re:Democrats are authoritarians by Tokolosh · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Please cite a situation, which was not caused by legislation, that has been permanently improved by legislation and where the unintended consequences have not made the situation worse overall..

      --
      Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
    9. Re:Democrats are authoritarians by Dragonslicer · · Score: 2

      Please cite a situation, which was not caused by legislation, that has been permanently improved by legislation and where the unintended consequences have not made the situation worse overall..

      Well, I certainly enjoy living in a society where people can't legally grab me on the street and steal my wallet.

    10. Re:Democrats are authoritarians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Without equally applying regulation/legislation you end up far worse than none at all. We now have John Corzine, a textbook example of a SOX violation in the neighborhood of $600 million free and unprosecuted, and Aaron Swartz was looking at nearly a lifetime imprisonment for not breaking any laws.

      When you have extreme examples on both sides like that it tells the people that the law and regulation is to keep them in control and keep the upper elite out of trouble no matter what.

      There may be debate about if there is too much/too little, but it is irrelevant at this point. If its not applied equally the middle class is better off with less.

    11. Re:Democrats are authoritarians by suutar · · Score: 1

      You have enough subjective qualifiers in there to make it impossible to answer if you choose to, but my first thought was air quality.

    12. Re:Democrats are authoritarians by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

      It doesn't matter if it's Republicans or Democrats - both are authoritarians. It's just different subjects that they bring up.

      Republicans are rabid anti-abortion and tries to stop it completely, democrats are trying to gain control of other things and use the racist card whenever convenient.

      Both parties are pretty crappy and if the election system had been proportional they would see some fresh competition, but they don't want that so they avoid reforms into true democracy.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    13. Re:Democrats are authoritarians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think that oversimplifies, but hardly your fault in a brief comment. One thing I'd say is that the only reason legislation works is that people usually try to follow it. When Democrats 'solve our problems by passing legislation,' I think it's due to the belief that if we all operated by the rule set out, things would be on the whole better for all of us. (What's, say, the best level of lead/mercury/something pollution? Zero? Unrealistic. All any individual cares to pollute? Crappy for everyone else. How does one individual find a morally acceptable level he or she may pollute without reference to the best thing our society has to indicate consensus, namely, legislation?) The problem with most Republicans on the other side is that they simultaneously believe such consensus on such issues is worthless, yet would be perfectly happy to legislate "only Christianity" or "no gays" or "zero immigrants" or whatever. Democrats at least seem to understand we live in a society and perhaps some sort of expression of a social contract (that doesn't deny our apparent existing social contract) might be in order.

    14. Re:Democrats are authoritarians by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

      The right for women to vote.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    15. Re:Democrats are authoritarians by Tokolosh · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      That is your inalienable right, not legislation. Try again.

      --
      Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
    16. Re:Democrats are authoritarians by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

      So if someone tries to rob me, I can just yell "inalienable right!" and they'll be magically compelled to not only stop trying to rob me, but to go lock themselves in a prison?

    17. Re:Democrats are authoritarians by Tokolosh · · Score: 0

      Rights are not granted by legislation. Try again.

      --
      Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
    18. Re:Democrats are authoritarians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lead additives which were poisoning our environment were eliminated by legislative action.

    19. Re:Democrats are authoritarians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but that's just bullshit. "Inalienable rights" is a largely meaningless phrase that people bandy about to justify their assumptions about what is important. In a society the only "inalienable rights" are those that are enforced by the government. If you disagree, try moving to a totalitarian state and see how far your inalienable rights get you.

    20. Re:Democrats are authoritarians by Tokolosh · · Score: 1

      Air pollution comes under the Common Law heading of "Public Nuisance". It is an offence against the rights of people as a group. Over time, American courts have made a complete mess of applying this doctrine, resulting in confusing precedents which in turn have resulted in legislation. Good try!

      --
      Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
    21. Re:Democrats are authoritarians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That fails his "not caused by legislation" test

    22. Re:Democrats are authoritarians by Tokolosh · · Score: 2

      What will you do? Shout "There is legislation making this illegal !"

      --
      Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
    23. Re:Democrats are authoritarians by tsqr · · Score: 1

      So if someone tries to rob me, I can just yell "inalienable right!" and they'll be magically compelled to not only stop trying to rob me, but to go lock themselves in a prison?

      Well, if that doesn't work, you can try yelling "legislation!" as well.

    24. Re:Democrats are authoritarians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's the "Democratic Party", not "Democrat party (sic)". Saying the latter makes you sound ignorant and ill-informed.

      Of course there's an extremely high probability you actually are ignorant and ill-informed. But I didn't want to hurt your feelings by saying so directly.

    25. Re:Democrats are authoritarians by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

      Well, there's a non-zero chance that doing that would at least get a police officer involved. Of course, it's far more likely that the best that can be done is for the police to investigate the crime and hopefully catch the robber.

      The point being that legislation is what makes robbery a crime, not the vague concept of "inalienable rights". How about laws regarding things like blasting loud noise into someone's home in the middle of the night or repeatedly making harassing phone calls? Are those also "inalienable rights"?

    26. Re:Democrats are authoritarians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope, that was a mistake.

    27. Re:Democrats are authoritarians by suutar · · Score: 1

      While I agree that air pollution is a public nuisance, I'm not sure how that leads to either the assertion that it was caused by legislation or that the legislation that prevents it has undesirable unintended consequences. Can you elaborate?

    28. Re:Democrats are authoritarians by Harlequin80 · · Score: 1

      How do you figure this in an inalienable right? Rights are just fancy ways of calling things given to you by those in power or taken by yourself due to your own power. Your "inalienable right" will last zero time in front of someone with the power to take it away.

    29. Re:Democrats are authoritarians by narcc · · Score: 1

      Please cite a situation, which was not caused by legislation, that has been permanently improved by legislation and where the unintended consequences have not made the situation worse overall..

      Where do you even begin? Environmental protections, food safety, sanitation, building standards, there seems to be no end to the examples.

      Note to libertarians: The free market does not have your best interests in mind. Large companies are short-sighted and socially irresponsible. Consumers are not perfectly rational actors. They will bend over, en masse, and happily pay for the privilege. History has taught us that legislation, like the above, is essential.

    30. Re:Democrats are authoritarians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, women voting is the cause of everything. They usually fall for the "think of the children" argument.

    31. Re:Democrats are authoritarians by operagost · · Score: 1

      This is about as stupid as a libertarian who says that getting rid of all regulation will solve all of our problems.

      That would indeed be stupid, because that person is called an anarchist-- not a libertarian.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    32. Re:Democrats are authoritarians by narcc · · Score: 1

      Oh, yes they are. You are deeply confused.

    33. Re:Democrats are authoritarians by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      How about human slavery? That was not caused by legislation, it was caused by people, and it was (legally) abolished by legislation. If you want to talk about "inalienable rights", tell that to the people who kept slaves thousands (or hundreds) of years ago. "Rights" are only "inalienable" if people actually respect them. You can scream to someone about your "inalienable" right to live but that's not going to stop a bullet that someone fired at you, just like it's not going to stop a slaveowner who decided that you belong to him. In fact, even while the Declaration Of Independence was talking about the inalienable rights of people here in the US, it was still allowing slavery. It talked about the right to life, liberty, and happiness for all people while not considering some humans people. Those inalienable rights apparently were fairly alienable until further legislation did something about it.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    34. Re:Democrats are authoritarians by jmac_the_man · · Score: 1

      How does one individual find a morally acceptable level he or she may pollute without reference to the best thing our society has to indicate consensus, namely, legislation?

      At the Federal level, and also true in most states, acceptable pollution levels are NOT set as a matter of legislation. They are set through regulations promulgated by bodies other than the legislature. (In the case of pollution, it's the EPA at the Federal level.) If they make the wrong tradeoffs, people don't have a way to fix it.

      If Finestein gets her encryption ban (she won't, but let's pretend), people can get rid of her in the next elections and replace her with somebody whose ideas aren't so fundamentally flawed. With regulatory bodies, it doesn't work like that.

    35. Re:Democrats are authoritarians by operagost · · Score: 1

      The only reason they couldn't was because of bigoted laws that prohibited them from voting. The natural state of man (humans) is to participate in the order of his society.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    36. Re:Democrats are authoritarians by vux984 · · Score: 1

      Yeah.. from laws prohibiting the dumping of garbage in the street, to prohibiting the sale of worthless snake oils as medicine, to prohibiting toxic materials in childrens toys... to the laws that grant rights of way and easements to install sewers and electricity, to the rules of the road (set which side of the road to drive on, no double parking, or blocking fire hydrants, hunting seasons and catch-and-release rules, protected species, seriously...

      What kind of nutter does one have to be not to see the benefits legislation have have brought. Sure there is bad legislation, and no shortage of it... but there is a TON of very good law out there.

    37. Re:Democrats are authoritarians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      'Democratic' I believe you'll find it said.

    38. Re:Democrats are authoritarians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Clean Air Act.

    39. Re:Democrats are authoritarians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cuyahoga River Fire

    40. Re:Democrats are authoritarians by judoguy · · Score: 0

      Please cite a situation, which was not caused by legislation, that has been permanently improved by legislation and where the unintended consequences have not made the situation worse overall..

      Well, I certainly enjoy living in a society where people can't legally grab me on the street and steal my wallet.

      Says you. What about this sort of thing? Asset forfeiture

      --
      Peace is easy to achieve, just surrender. Liberty is much harder get/keep.
    41. Re:Democrats are authoritarians by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

      I'm far too lazy to follow that link, but I assume that it isn't about a person grabbing me on the street and stealing my wallet, so I'm not entirely certain what your point is. Are you trying to say that not all laws are good and that sometimes the government does things that it shouldn't do? If so, then I agree with your statement.

    42. Re:Democrats are authoritarians by Sique · · Score: 1

      Rights are granted by legislation. Try again.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    43. Re:Democrats are authoritarians by operagost · · Score: 1

      Please cite me the law in your locality which establishes theft as a crime.

      No, not the law that establishes the penalty for theft.

      In the USA, that's called "common law". We don't have laws pointing out that murder and theft are illegal, because everyone knows what simple theft and murder are, and that they infringe on people's rights.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    44. Re:Democrats are authoritarians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right on! Dems are right about some things, Reps about others, Libertarians about others still. Because none of those groups of people are idiots and in fact they are each correct about some things and, like all humans, seriously guilty of overgeneralization.

      Feinstein is a Democrat but will get plenty of Republican support on this one. I tend Dem, but DF is an embarrassment on these kinds of issues. Ron (the father) Paul is good on this kind of issue, and an embarrassment on others. One would hope that with a bunch of people of varying viewpoints in a room, they could converge on the right answer individual to the problem at hand, based on logical argument. But that's not how it works ...

    45. Re: Democrats are authoritarians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Unleaded solder grows tin whiskers in just a few years, making many devices fail for no good reason. And they aren't repairable so they just add to the electronic waste stream.

    46. Re:Democrats are authoritarians by humptheElephant · · Score: 1

      Ah, but someone can. Its been done to innocent people by the CIA, and they don't suffer any consequences for such behavior. Its part of the Imperial policy. Make a mistake, too bad, we got the wrong guy and tortured him.

    47. Re:Democrats are authoritarians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure it does, the President absolutely has the power to overrule the EPA if they make a bad decision. Electing new congress critters can also result in passing legislation to overrule the EPA. Just because it isn't direct doesn't mean you can't influence policy.

    48. Re:Democrats are authoritarians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      See US Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. Everything thereafter is secondary.

      If you think either of those has made the situation worse, take your ass to Saudi Arabia, Syria, Nigeria, Libya, Phillipines, Somalia, Yemen, Iran, North Korea, .... Need I go on?

    49. Re:Democrats are authoritarians by Copid · · Score: 1

      No, rights are inherent and granted by magic. If you try to exercise your right to free speech and I try to stop you, the Universe Itself will prevent me from doing so. Nothing whatsoever to do with conventions we as a society have agreed upon. They're fundamental, I tells ya, like gravity and magnetism.

      --
      An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
    50. Re:Democrats are authoritarians by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      Well, I certainly enjoy living in a society where people can't legally grab me on the street and steal my wallet.

      Yes, its much better when it happens illegally.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    51. Re:Democrats are authoritarians by HiThere · · Score: 2

      The truth is, indeed, somewhere in the middle, but it is my contention that any law that cannot be understood by an average high school senior should be declared invalid, AND that there should be an explicit finite limit on the number of laws. I'm thinking somewhere around 5,000. Something that people would have a reasonable hope of understanding.

      P.S.: "understood by an average high school senior" means that if you took 11 high school seniors, at least 7 of them would understand it the same way. Writing clearly is, admittedly, a challenge, but if people are expected to obey the laws, they should be able to understand them.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    52. Re: Democrats are authoritarians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Easily repaired. I use an exacto knife.

    53. Re:Democrats are authoritarians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fine, I rather like that my neighbor cannot pump toxic waste down his water well without consequences.

    54. Re:Democrats are authoritarians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What will you do? Shout "There is legislation making this illegal !"

      I will yell, "help, POLICE!" "FIRE!" and anything else that gets attention that might lead to a government investigation after the fact. And the slight risk of getting caught, by people with guns who are paid to look for these things, will deter 99% of people from engaging in kidnapping/raping/robbery style behavior.

      I'm glad this shit is illegal. Without laws, if it was legal to run people over with a car after shooting them with hood mounted machine guns, I would do so. I wouldn't do it in a premeditated fashion, but I'd mount weapons on my car for coolness. And the engineering challenge of getting them to work like on that Mythbusters episode, or just out of fear of someone else doing it to me first. And then, when I was having a bad day, and some asshole was the cherry on top of an angry day sundae, I'd gun that bastard down, making his kids orphans. If there were no government, there would be no license plate and no real way to track me down. There certainly wouldn't be any professional police force, even if Billy Bob and Skeeter were up for a posse that weekend. Their beer, whiskey, gas and bullets don't buy themselves, so they gotta work for a living doing something other than hunt me. I like my odds in that situation.

      Oh, and if you all get together and put up money for it when needed? That's government, just a less efficient and unstable form of it.

    55. Re:Democrats are authoritarians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Democrat party"? Your Rush Limbaugh slip is showing.

    56. Re:Democrats are authoritarians by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      Why especially democrats? Plus that's easy: voter identification, immigration, reproductive systems, etc, the stuff republicans *do* want to control.

      Both parties are authoritarian. They are just authoritarian for different subsets of issues.

      Supporting freedom is about more than supporting only freedoms for yourself and people like you.

    57. Re:Democrats are authoritarians by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      Someone who wants to get rid of all legislation is an anarchist. Most people called libertarians these days are just republicans. libertarians were at one point simply in favor of minimal effective government (not no government), and they were not left nor right. The idea of "minimal effective government" is already a middle ground between anarchy and bloated government.

    58. Re:Democrats are authoritarians by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      An inalienable rights are pretty much worthless without some entity (state legal system, vigilante posse, etc) to enforce it. Making theft and assault illegal through legislation, creates an environment where theft and assault are deterred and punished, and people don't need to spend as much effort preventing their own victimization.

      The whole point of government is to protect rights through legislation. If the legislation is bad, then it will be protecting the wrong rights (i.e. the rights of corporations to hinder their competitors, the rights of politicians to accept bribes, etc), but you don't get to pretend that laws against theft and assault are not legislation because they are "inalienable rights"

      If you want to play that game, then you need to specify that you are actually talking about "legislation not confirming an inalienable right (as determined by you)" rather than simply "all legislation".

      However, saying "I can divide up every piece of legislation into 2 categories: "Inalienable right" and "bad legislation"" is not very interesting.

    59. Re:Democrats are authoritarians by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      Laws making it illegal to drive through red lights?

    60. Re:Democrats are authoritarians by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      Are you a libertarian caricature troll or something?

    61. Re:Democrats are authoritarians by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      Note to people who give notes to libertarians: Not all libertarians think every problem can be solved by the free market. Libertarians are not anarchists.

    62. Re:Democrats are authoritarians by lgw · · Score: 1

      Well put - was typing the same when I noticed yours.

      In a sense it's an unfair question though, as it could be rephrased as "name a situation not created by humans that humans have made better". There are whole categories there, and IMO it's just such places when government is helpful: natural disasters, funding fundamental research, and so on. The rest of law, with few exceptions is "the wrong humans have power - give more power to those humans there, maybe that will be better", but of course it rarely is for long.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    63. Re:Democrats are authoritarians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... I wonder if there is an area of life that politicians, especially Democrats - don't want to control?

      Hmm, you mean like what you do in the bedroom and who with, personal choices granted to individual by the US SUPREME COURT, any notion of not having to work until you drop dead, the assurance that your environment will be safe for you and your kinds?

      You mean that kind of stuff?

    64. Re:Democrats are authoritarians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You think there's a difference between Red and Blue politicians. That's so cute.

    65. Re:Democrats are authoritarians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Conservatives are just the same. Sure, some details on exactly which legislation they think will fix their country vary, but from a European perspective, the Democrats and Conservatives are almost identical.

    66. Re:Democrats are authoritarians by rhazz · · Score: 1

      The CFC ban.

    67. Re:Democrats are authoritarians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it wasn't against the law, what recourse would he have?

    68. Re:Democrats are authoritarians by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      You don't need to know the whole legal code. There may be a ton of laws regarding, for instance, airplance building and operation.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    69. Re:Democrats are authoritarians by JimFive · · Score: 1

      Standardization of weights and measures.

      --
      Please stop using the word theory when you mean hypothesis.
    70. Re:Democrats are authoritarians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep, because having lead in your paint, lead in your car's gas, non-food filler in your sausages, and many other additives are much better than hampering all those poor old businesses with regulations!

    71. Re:Democrats are authoritarians by Tokolosh · · Score: 1

      Standards do not need government action. There are numerous private bodies that issue standards, which are adopted freely by people, business and industry.

      But your example is amusing, inasmuch that Congress long ago (Metric Act of 1866) decreed that the metric system is preferred and should be adopted. See where that got us!

      Issues such as driving on the left/right - these are regulations to manage potential conflicts when people exercise their rights together. If you call this regulation (in the classic meaning of the word) a type of legislation, then I'll grant it is useful, if applied in a way that minimizes infringement on liberties. But today the creation of victimless crimes seems to be the highest priority.

      --
      Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
    72. Re:Democrats are authoritarians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      these stupid people think barry soetero is going to fly in on a comanche with a megaphone and a wagging finger and save them.

  9. And then everyone will... by SirKron · · Score: 3, Interesting

    And then everyone will react by sending their encrypted (first level) traffic through a tunnel that performs a second encryption level in a country that laughs at their legal requests. She just doesn't get it. Encryption is here to stay for very good reasons law enforcement has to adapt.

    1. Re: And then everyone will... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Law enforcement has adapted - they will taze you into compliance, from which you might die, but most of the time it doesn't leave a scar.

    2. Re: And then everyone will... by sandbagger · · Score: 1

      Petechial hemorrhages show the direction current travelled.

      --
      ---- The above post was generated by the Turing Institute. Maybe.
    3. Re:And then everyone will... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't understand what they want. They want to force Apple, Google, MSFT and the Linux developers to integrate backdoors. Ready for perusal by the government. They will then install a keylogger and get all the goodies, irrespective of you nice crypto algo.

    4. Re:And then everyone will... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everyone? Don't kid yourself. Most people just use their computers as they come; if anything requires an extra step, or costs some performance, or even takes some thought, they won't do it. People won't use those tunnels, just like people don't encrypt their mail and are perfectly fine with putting their entire life on Facebook.

  10. She's 82 years old by StevenMaurer · · Score: 1

    I'm sure she means well (I mean, at least she's talking about needing a court-order, which is a Constitutionally compliant practice) . But yeah, pretty bad.

    Still nothing like a "series of tubes" though.

    1. Re:She's 82 years old by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's worse than "series of tubes". That, at least, was a semi-decent analogy.

    2. Re:She's 82 years old by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      She doesn't mean well, her age is irrelevant, she's a politician and has an angle, either her husband Richard Blum is investing in some tech, or she's trolling for money to NOT do what she's suggesting.

      I'm a very progressive liberal and can't stand the corruption around this woman and would happily escort her out of town.

    3. Re:She's 82 years old by ScentCone · · Score: 5, Informative

      Still nothing like a "series of tubes" though.

      You're talking about a powerful senator who sits on several defense and intelligence related committees who - on seeing some Code Pink protesters outside her house trying to fly a pink plastic mall kiosk toy helicopter with a 10-inch rotor (and tethered to some string!) later told reporters that she'd had people spying through her windows with a drone, and that all of them should be illegal.

      "Series of tubes" is downright informative by comparison to her grasp on technology and her urge to run people's lives.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    4. Re:She's 82 years old by ganjadude · · Score: 5, Informative

      she doesnt mean well,. that woman has NEVER meant well

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    5. Re:She's 82 years old by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      I.e. business as usual -- this is why these people go into politics: to get in the way of things so they can get paid to get back out of the way.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    6. Re:She's 82 years old by macs4all · · Score: 2

      she doesnt mean well,. that woman has NEVER meant well

      Exactly! She and Chuck Schumer are two rats in the same nest.

    7. Re:She's 82 years old by Theaetetus · · Score: 4, Interesting

      ... and her granddaughter is 26, which raises the question of why she's monitoring her Playstation usage.

    8. Re:She's 82 years old by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So why did you vote her to office?

    9. Re:She's 82 years old by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ""Series of tubes" is downright informative by comparison to her grasp on technology and her urge to ruin people's lives."

      There, FTFY.

    10. Re:She's 82 years old by techno-vampire · · Score: 3, Informative

      I didn't; I live in California I've been voting against both of our left-wing loonie Senators for decades, for exactly this reason, plus the fact that they're both anti-gun hypocrites with concealed-carry permits.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    11. Re: She's 82 years old by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      She's a senator. Her granddaughter is exactly the age she decides her to be, and you have nothing to say about it. It's high time you learn to respect your betters, for your and your family's sake.

    12. Re:She's 82 years old by ganjadude · · Score: 0

      I didnt, the idiots in cali seem to have stockholm syndrome and keep voting in their abusers

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    13. Re:She's 82 years old by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Series of tubes" isn't a bad analogy for what that Senator was referencing though. The analogy was to imply that there is only so much bandwidth in the internet's infrastructure and so its use is zero-sum. By allowing user A to send data equal 10% of the total bandwidth, users B-Z can only send 90% of the total bandwidth, which is inequitable to users B-Z, who make up 96% of the users.

      Of course, assuming that bandwidth use is always saturated.

    14. Re:She's 82 years old by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      she doesnt mean well,. that woman has NEVER meant well

      Speaking of mental stability, is there a reason we don't have a mandatory retirement age for members of Congress?

      Yes, it's a serious question. The job requires some considerable mental capacity. Regardless of her views, her grasp of reality is so far removed I'm questioning sanity at this point.

    15. Re:She's 82 years old by Pfhorrest · · Score: 1

      If only there were ever any alternatives besides a Republican who's even (if only slightly) worse. I've never seen a third party even on the ballot for Senate here. Every election I personally compare the two-and-only-two D and R options hoping against hope that somehow there will be a Republican this year who's at least tiny bit better than the Democrat incumbents... and then sigh and resignedly for for the incumbents again, because as shitty as they are, the alternatives are always slightly worse.

      --
      -Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
      "I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
    16. Re:She's 82 years old by techno-vampire · · Score: 1

      ...and then sigh and resignedly for for the incumbents again, because as shitty as they are, the alternatives are always slightly worse.

      Has it ever occurred to you that this is why there's never a Republican candidate you like? As long as people like you keep voting for Democrats, no Republicans who are any good are going to waste their time running because they know they don't have a chance. Vote for the least objectionable Republican in the primary, then hold your nose if you have to and vote against the lunatic-fringe Democrats.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    17. Re:She's 82 years old by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      when in doubt

      Vote the incumbent out

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    18. Re:She's 82 years old by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Control freak? Senile?

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    19. Re:She's 82 years old by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      There is never any doubt, just vote the incumbent out.

      Time for someone else to get their share of the Graft.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  11. These people sometimes forget... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    ...that this stuff sometimes isn't even stored anywhere.

    So a conversation takes place between one or more people of suspect. Police want to know. Let's even pretend that they make a solid case to a judge and get a warrant. They serve Sony the warrant to find out what was said, and... ...they are told that there is nothing to give them. Voice conversations aren't generally saved from these video game systems.

    1. Re:These people sometimes forget... by macs4all · · Score: 1

      ...that this stuff sometimes isn't even stored anywhere.

      So a conversation takes place between one or more people of suspect. Police want to know. Let's even pretend that they make a solid case to a judge and get a warrant. They serve Sony the warrant to find out what was said, and... ...they are told that there is nothing to give them. Voice conversations aren't generally saved from these video game systems.

      Oh, that's no problem!

      We'll just pass MORE laws to require Sony, Microsoft, et al. to log and retain every pimple-faced kid's sophmoric ramblings...

    2. Re:These people sometimes forget... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...that this stuff sometimes isn't even stored anywhere.

      First, you seem to be missing the first part of your sentence.
      Second, that's easily solved by mandating that it gets stored somewhere.

      Voice conversations aren't generally saved from these video game systems.

      They don't just want to have access to past conversations, they want to be able to listen in to live conversations as well.

  12. Nanny state alert! by Darth+Twon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "I have concern about a PlayStation that my grandchildren might use," she said, "and a predator getting on the other end, and talking to them, and it's all encrypted. I think there really is reason to have the ability, with a court order, to be able to get into that."

    If you are so worried about a predator talking to your grandchildren through the Playstation network, why are they using it unsupervised?

    Take care of your own problems, don't make the government do it for you.

    --
    Take this sig and smoke it.
    1. Re:Nanny state alert! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. We also shouldn't police playgrounds or schoolyards. You should be with your children at all times.

    2. Re:Nanny state alert! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. We also shouldn't police playgrounds or schoolyards. You should be with your children at all times.

      Stupid strawman is fucking stupid.

      WTF does your silly argument have to do with mandating breakable encryption?

      Fool.

    3. Re:Nanny state alert! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think her grandchildren aren't supervised because they are 25 years old.

    4. Re: Nanny state alert! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Relax, Mr crankypants. It's a snark on the GP's assertion that parents should monitor their kids activity instead of putting backdoors into everything.

  13. Speaks with forked tongue by charles05663 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    She is all for spying...except if it is on her...

    1. Re:Speaks with forked tongue by i.r.id10t · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Same with her stance on gun control. While one of the biggest proponents, she has (or had... she may have given it up in shame when this was revealed) a CCW permit in California, which is near impossible for an average person to obtain

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
    2. Re:Speaks with forked tongue by Zak3056 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Hypocrisy is nothing new with her--Feinstein ALWAYS carves out exceptions for herself. Despite being one of the most anti-gun politicians you'll find in the US, she carries (or at least used to carry) a firearm for self defense.

      --
      What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
    3. Re:Speaks with forked tongue by nytes · · Score: 2

      Same with her stance on gun control. While one of the biggest proponents, she has (or had... she may have given it up in shame when this was revealed) a CCW permit in California, which is near impossible for an average person to obtain

      And she had it while successfully leading the charge to ban handguns in San Francisco.

      --
      -- I have monkeys in my pants.
    4. Re:Speaks with forked tongue by macs4all · · Score: 1

      Same with her stance on gun control. While one of the biggest proponents, she has (or had... she may have given it up in shame when this was revealed) a CCW permit in California, which is near impossible for an average person to obtain

      No, she hasn't given up that rubric, either.

      I saw her and her butt-buddy, Chuck Schumer, on TV, calling for more gun-control a few days after the San Bernadino shooting.

    5. Re:Speaks with forked tongue by macs4all · · Score: 1

      Hypocrisy is nothing new with her--Feinstein ALWAYS carves out exceptions for herself. Despite being one of the most anti-gun politicians you'll find in the US, she carries (or at least used to carry) a firearm for self defense.

      Anti-GUN?!? No, she's just plain, ol' Anti-FREEDOM!

      When she was on her "Anti-Gun" soapbox about a decade ago, she even wanted to ban Civil-War Reenactments as "Bloodsport"!!!

      I shit you not.

    6. Re:Speaks with forked tongue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's small time hypocrisy - REAL hypocrisy is State Sen. Leland Yee - an anti-gun activist that was actively smuggling heavy weapons to criminal organizations!

    7. Re:Speaks with forked tongue by toolie · · Score: 1

      When she tried to get that list of weapons banned in 2013, she also made an exception for current, and former, government employees. I guess to make sure she still had access to what she wanted to deny others.

      --
      -- toolie
    8. Re:Speaks with forked tongue by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Worse than that. She has a fucking Federal CCW permit. lets her carry anywhere.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  14. But this is totally not a backdoor! by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 2

    *facepalm*

    </thread>

    --
    Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  15. Solved by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You can already pierce through encryption just fine. Just apply brute force.

    You break through...eventually.

    1. Re:Solved by oneiros27 · · Score: 1

      Exactly ... fund the creation of some super computers to brute force encrypted systems in a reasonable amount of time should a court approve an order.

      The next thing you know, they'll require that all safe manufacturers create a master key that unlocks everything they make.

      If they seize a safe, they can drill into it ... it's not pretty, but it's not something that someone might be sloppy with and post on the open internet for anyone to copy.

      --
      Build it, and they will come^Hplain.
    2. Re:Solved by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Heh... I clicked your link which led me to find this:
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      I'm sure there's some science to be had in that video but that's not even remotely important.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  16. Uhhh, that's easy by phorm · · Score: 2

    If you have access to the conversation on the children's side, you have ALREADY pierced encryption. The endpoints aren't hidden by encryption in most cases, that's a function of NAT/VPN/tor/etc

    1. Re:Uhhh, that's easy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Logic and Reason do not work on idiots like Feinstein

  17. She is merely following precendent by l2718 · · Score: 4, Informative
    1. Re:She is merely following precendent by macs4all · · Score: 1

      The Indiana Legistlature has already tried to legislate on mathematics.

      You beat me to it!

    2. Re:She is merely following precendent by Krishnoid · · Score: 1

      I don't see a problem with this.

      In other news, scientists and engineers in Indiana have agreed to change number systems from base 10 to (help me out here) base 10^(old-value-of-pi/3).

    3. Re:She is merely following precendent by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      I'd do that if it meant getting rid of Daylight Saving.

    4. Re:She is merely following precendent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Indiana Legistlature has already tried to legislate on mathematics.

      Indiana is actively hostile towards good education. That's why they graduate so few, and harbor so many Tea Party members.

    5. Re:She is merely following precendent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thankfully, a Purdue Professor saved the day.

    6. Re:She is merely following precendent by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      Indiana does daylight savings now...
      :(

  18. Jumped the shark with this one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    First terrorists, now think of the children.

    All of you in the U.S. Government - go fuck yourselves you ignorant fucktards.

    Break(pierce)able encryption isn't encryption.

    Unbreakable encryption doesn't exist - it just takes a long damned time to "guess" the key.

    Remember that little old 4th Amendment? Yeah, you know the one - where "Congress may pass no law" - prohibiting shit like this...
    The Patriot act has been unconstitutional from the get go, and all of you ignorant fucks are guilty of treason and are traitors to our country.

    1. Re:Jumped the shark with this one... by Sowelu · · Score: 2

      Don't give your cause a bad name by misrepresenting the 4th amendment. It asserts the right of people to be secure in their stuff against _unreasonable_ searches and seizures, and say that warrants are permissible with probable cause.

      Whatever reasonable objections you have, this isn't one of them. The 4th doesn't protect anyone's stuff when the government has probable cause to search that particular stuff, including communications.

    2. Re:Jumped the shark with this one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, but it does.

      Physical mail is sent in a sealed envolope.

      Electronic records are encryptied.

      Both act as the "sealed container" which requires a warrant to open.

      If they get the warrant, you can still refuse to "decrypt" as you can plead the 5th in that the encrypted records "could" incriminate you.

      So no, it doesn't hurt the argument at all.

    3. Re:Jumped the shark with this one... by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 2

      More interesting is the First Amendment right to speak, encrypted, as encrypted speech is itself speech.

      I like fighting this on the grounds of the pocketbook, it harming US companies bound by it, and the eventual and inevitable failure of government to keep escrow keys secret. Fight it there before gets back to the Supreme Court.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    4. Re:Jumped the shark with this one... by fnj · · Score: 1

      The 4th doesn't protect anyone's stuff when the government has probable cause to search that particular stuff, including communications.

      Yeah, the Gestapo said Joe is probably an enemy of the State, so they got Judge Fido to issue a warrant. Go over every site he has ever visited with a fine tooth comb.

      I admit corruption trumps process. But STUPIDITY is what makes this bill an abortion.

    5. Re:Jumped the shark with this one... by tsqr · · Score: 1

      If they get the warrant, you can still refuse to "decrypt" as you can plead the 5th in that the encrypted records "could" incriminate you.

      I imagine that would be about as successful as refusing to give up a DNA sample under court order.

    6. Re:Jumped the shark with this one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Think a little more deeply:

      The BOR does not specify that citizens must make their communications and effects comprehensible nor does it specify that a search must be successful, only that it may take place.

  19. Lawmakers don't understand technology by ZorinLynx · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The bad guys are just going to keep using existing software that doesn't have these backdoors (esp open source software that can be vetted). In other words, this legislation will accomplish absolutely nothing but making mainstream communication tools less secure.

    1. Re: Lawmakers don't understand technology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed.

      Plus any backdoored comms mean can be easily turned into a safe channel again by simply sending encrypted "cleartext". So spies would need a backdoor in the backdoor. Which is then again easily turned safe again etc. Obviously the honourable senator, praise be upon her, doesn't have a f*king clue. "It's encryption all the way down", stupid.

  20. I guess both the republicans and the democrats by someone1234 · · Score: 1

    So, i assume both sides would vote on the same. Does this also represent what the voters want? Or does this represent a narrow band of the ruling elite.

    --
    Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
    1. Re:I guess both the republicans and the democrats by waspleg · · Score: 2

      This represents military industrial complex uber alles with a thin veneer of 2 party psuedo democracy dolloped on a hardened turd of corporate oligarchy.

      See, they want to to keep spying on anything and everything, it's how they keep their power.

    2. Re:I guess both the republicans and the democrats by macs4all · · Score: 1

      So, i assume both sides would vote on the same. Does this also represent what the voters want? Or does this represent a narrow band of the ruling elite.

      You ask that like there's a difference.

  21. Locks on Doors becoming a problem... do something by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Government officials today revealed serious concern about the use of locks on doors. Legislation being crafted due to concerns child molesters use locks and shut doors hampering investigations.

  22. Responsbile parenting by portwojc · · Score: 5, Interesting

    That's funny did Dianne Feinstein just imply that she can't trust her own children to raise their children properly?

    1. Re:Responsbile parenting by nytes · · Score: 2

      I blame their parents.

      --
      -- I have monkeys in my pants.
    2. Re:Responsbile parenting by ItsJustAPseudonym · · Score: 1

      Yes. And I'm not even sure if her grandchildren are still children.

      "Think of my (25 year old) grandchildren playing unsupervised!"

      (No, I'm not going to check reality. This is too funny.)

    3. Re:Responsbile parenting by narcc · · Score: 1

      She had just two grandchildren, both girls, I found referenced from an articled dated November 2000. From an article dated January 2006, she mentioned her expanding family included 5 grandchildren, soon to be a 6th. That gives us at least one kid under 10, with 3 more under 16.

      She also, apparently, lives with them as she now lives in a mansion once owned by George Lucas purchased because they "needed the space".

      At her age, I would have expected her to express concern over her great-grandchildren. I guess when we started seeing grandmothers in their early 30's, you stop thinking about really late-in-life babies...

    4. Re:Responsbile parenting by chihowa · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't trust my children to raise children, because children shouldn't even be having children!

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
    5. Re:Responsbile parenting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some peoples' kids...

  23. Rider added to bill by Tokolosh · · Score: 1

    Pi = 3

    --
    Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
  24. Here are your problems: by waspleg · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Dianne Goldman Berman Feinstein, born Dianne Emiel Goldman[1] (/ËfaÉnstaÉn/; born June 22, 1933), is the senior United States Senator from California. A member of the Democratic Party, she has served in the Senate since 1992.

    Served on the Senate since 1992.

    82 years old with no fucking clue what she's talking about.

    1. Re:Here are your problems: by dysmal · · Score: 1

      82 years old with no fucking clue what she's talking about.

      As opposed to the self absorbed 20 somethings who have no fucking clue what they're talking about when they tell you how to code/build something or how to solve the worlds problems?

      Ignorance transcends age.

    2. Re:Here are your problems: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      On top of that, she is worried about her grandchildren. Let's see: she is 82, her children probably around 50, her grandchildren maybe around 20. Yes those helpless little children being in danger of predators on PS4 networks. Those poor little babies of 20 years! Would someone please think of the not-so-children-anymore!!!

    3. Re:Here are your problems: by fnj · · Score: 1

      82 years old with no fucking clue what she's talking about.

      What toasts my keester is not that she is clueless about technology. It is that the stupid bitch obviously hasn't bothered to run her hare brained notions past competent technologists to test for ignorance. All ahead full, to hell with reality.

    4. Re:Here are your problems: by sasparillascott · · Score: 1

      You have to look at her history in particular to understand things. She's is asking for and demanding exactly what the intelligence (NSA/DHS/FBI) want which is the what her subcommittee oversees. And she has done this consistently. Those groups see an opportunity to keep most of the population communicating without privacy here and she's one of the messengers on that committtee (most of the committee is in the pocket of the agencies).

      A more interesting question is why. She, herself has been a victim of the CIA hacking her project computers in the Senate, which she was quite upset about....yet she keeps running ahead as a mouthpiece to the intelligence community (the leading GOP person on it is the same) to keep privacy from possibly coming back to U.S. citizen communications like it'd be the end of the world. Hard to square.

    5. Re:Here are your problems: by jdavidb · · Score: 1

      82 years old with no fucking clue what she's talking about.

      Yeah, my first thought was if she's concerned about the playstation she should install monitoring software on it. Right after she learns how to set the clock on her VCR.

    6. Re:Here are your problems: by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Tell us how many millions and how much influence you have when you turn 82... She is doing what she was hired to do. It's not a difficult concept to understand. Maybe the confusion arises from trying to apply your rules to their racket. You want clueless? Find out why people vote for her. They're probably not so 'clueless' themselves. Quid pro quo always travels full circle.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    7. Re:Here are your problems: by Miser · · Score: 1

      Wait.

      82 years old? Seriously? She needs to just fucking retire. I sure as hell hope when I'm 82 I am retired and not working anymore.

    8. Re:Here are your problems: by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      she has ill gotten gains. of course most of us wouldn't stoop to her level of evil to make millions.

      she is one jackbooted fascist fossilized cunt

    9. Re: Here are your problems: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      She's addicted to power and her own ego. She gets off on forcing her viewpoints onto everyone, and doesn't think anyone could possibly run the world any better.

  25. Encryption does not kill people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Encryption doesn't kill people. People kill people. The only way to stop a bad guy with an encryptor is a good guy with an encryptor. Captcha: boggling

  26. Ignorance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ignorance is all that is required to keep people like this in charge. It is a sad fact that too many of the people who vote are also ignorant.

  27. Think of the children cuts both ways by Plazmid · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I have a concern about the IM apps my grandchildren might use and a predator getting in the middle and spoofing messages from their parents. A predator could pierce through encryption and send messages like "mommy won't be able to pick you up from school, but uncle bob will, so do whatever he says."

    1. Re:Think of the children cuts both ways by rgbatduke · · Score: 1

      Hmmm, is the origin of the phrase "Bob's your uncle"?

      Robert G. Brown (a.k.a. "Uncle Bob" to the offspring of his brothers and sisters...)

      (Well, actually not. Actually Uncle Rob. Sorry for the confusion.)

      --
      Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. --- Bertrand Russell.
    2. Re:Think of the children cuts both ways by laurencetux · · Score: 1

      a floating passcode would solve that (and there could be a duress code where the kid runs to the school office to report that a bad man has my parents if that is used)

    3. Re:Think of the children cuts both ways by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yes honey booboo's (most of us parents) mom is completly capable of this

    4. Re:Think of the children cuts both ways by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      I thought Chuck was the evil asshole with malicious intent and Eve was just a little bitch that like eavesdropping.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    5. Re:Think of the children cuts both ways by thoromyr · · Score: 1

      Did you just recommend a duress code for use by children in school? Wow!

    6. Re:Think of the children cuts both ways by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed. But, meanwhile on the same intercepted channel, the 'parents' could re-issue a new passcode just for 'Uncle Bob'. (We're not talking 4 year olds here.)
      eg. ".... and when Bob picks you up, his new passcode is 'lollipop' "

      So you need to make sure that a cleverly prepared 'abduction' won't undermine all the carefully practiced and prepared spy-craft that you're going to teach your kids. And since it is 100 times more likely that your kid will be hit by a car and taken care of by a non-psychotic stranger, I'd say all of that effort is completely undermined by false positives and an artificially imposed social isolation.

    7. Re:Think of the children cuts both ways by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      We had to wear uniforms in our school, with neckties!

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    8. Re:Think of the children cuts both ways by mrchaotica · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I have a concern that my (future) grandchildren might have to grow up in a goddamn totalitarian dictatorship because of anti-American sociopaths like Feinstein. In fact, I'm way more worried about that than I am about Internet predators!

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    9. Re:Think of the children cuts both ways by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      true, but "whoosh" nonetheless. the point was that predators will find unexpected ways to exploit this before the feds can patch their own security flaws. so the cure may be worse than the disease.

  28. So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ...I expect Slashdot to thoroughly Savage Diane for her attempts to undermine internet freedom and privacy just as they savaged Trump for merely suggesting what Hillary Suggested.

    1. Re:So... by thaylin · · Score: 1

      ...I expect Slashdot to thoroughly Savage Diane for her attempts to undermine internet freedom and privacy just as they savaged Trump for merely suggesting what Hillary Suggested.

      What was Trump savaged for again? You may have the savaging mixed up. They should be savaged for this, but Trump takes it 100000000 times further

      --
      When you cant win, ad hominem.
    2. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know why anyone would expect any different. Slashdotters in general don't tend to hold a very high opinion of Feinstein.

    3. Re:So... by macs4all · · Score: 2

      I don't know why anyone would expect any different. Slashdotters in general don't tend to hold a very high opinion of Feinstein.

      Proving that Slashdot hasn't lost ALL of its smart users (yet).

    4. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      10 out of 10 Slashdotters who claim they know the political leanings of 9 out of 10 Slashdotters are full of shit.

    5. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll have you know that since I just got back from the loo, I'm completely empty of shit, and think that you totally vote UKIP.

    6. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your expectations do not instill in me a sense of obligation.

    7. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We all know her stance on firearms. It is an obvious fact that if she got laws passed to ban guns and crypto, that it will never rear its head as an issue ever... Look how marijuana has disappeared after it was banned, and mandatory life sentences were enacted for though caught with it.

      There is no way a criminal would ever use crypto once it was made illegal, nor would they bring in an assault weapon with a magazine of more than 10 rounds into the state, nor smoke a joint.

      We can celebrate her wisdom knowing that backdoors never get found by the bad guys, and that whatever solution to add key escrow or back doors will be 100% secure.

    8. Re:So... by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      ...I expect Slashdot to thoroughly Savage Diane for her attempts to undermine internet freedom and privacy just as they savaged Trump for merely suggesting what Hillary Suggested.

      I turned on Trump not for his Internet comment, but instead the "lets temporarily ban entry to the U.S.A. for all Muslims" comment. It shows a blatant willingness to violate the spirit of the first amendment if not the letter.

    9. Re:So... by operagost · · Score: 1

      When you're a member of government, the letter of the law is what matters.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    10. Re:So... by cfalcon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I've thought Trump was a clown, but the Muslim comment was absolutely chilling- "top polling GOP candidate vows to repeal first amendment" is how I read that. Clearly, Republicans will address this issue, but holy crap. The internet thing would have soured my already poor opinion of him, but it came after the "ban the Muslims" comment. That's straight frightening.

    11. Re:So... by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      Not all are gone. Some of us still exist. The problem is that far too many see (D) or (R) and kneejerk their reaction.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    12. Re:So... by RoccamOccam · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I agree. I am also just as disturbed that Obama and Hillary are both pushing the "eliminate a Constitutionally-enumerated right without due process" idea. At least with Trump, the Republican Party is actively opposing his nomination. With Hillary, however, ...

    13. Re:So... by neoritter · · Score: 0

      National Review has a great op-ed:
      http://www.nationalreview.com/...

      I'm hoping the pendulum will return to balance soon.

    14. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, the media makes 100000000x as much out of things when Trump says them, even though they both spout the same idiotic ideas.

      I don't want any of them to become President. I don't see myself voting for any of them, either.

    15. Re:So... by TwoEyedJack · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I've thought Trump was a clown, but the Muslim comment was absolutely chilling- "top polling GOP candidate vows to repeal first amendment" is how I read that. Clearly, Republicans will address this issue, but holy crap. The internet thing would have soured my already poor opinion of him, but it came after the "ban the Muslims" comment. That's straight frightening.

      The first amendment does not apply to foreigners on foreign soil. In this context, immigration, it is helpful if you consider Islam to be not merely a religion, but also a political ideology. And a scary one at that. The problem is that we cannot tell religious Muslims from political ones since there is most definitely a wide spectrum, and religions followers sometimes migrate toward the political side, then they start blowing things up or shooting people. The risk profile is not favorable to allowing immigration of Muslims. Sure, most won't turn violent, but every one that does will lead to a number of dead Americans. I would rather see a million Muslims turned away than a single American lying in a pool of blood. ISIS has publicly stated that they intend to seed terrorists into the pool of immigrants

      I will also note that a democrat signed into law the following:

      "8 U.S. Code 1182 - Inadmissible aliens

      (f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President

      Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate."

    16. Re:So... by TwoEyedJack · · Score: 1

      DiFi was the one who wanted to reclassify your Ruger 10/22 as an NFA weapon (i.e. machine gun). She is evil.

    17. Re:So... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Trump takes it 100000000 times further

      Trump is a private citizen, and despite his current poll numbers, he is NOT going to be elected to anything. Feinstein is a senior senator with powerful committee seats, and a lot of influence over legislation. Her positions actually matter.

      As a Californian, I am very ashamed that she is my senator, and I don't understand why anyone would vote for her.

    18. Re:So... by RabidReindeer · · Score: 4, Funny

      You know it's bad when you have a suggestion for deletion of a freedom and it gets condemned by Dick Cheney!

    19. Re:So... by macs4all · · Score: 1

      DiFi was the one who wanted to reclassify your Ruger 10/22 as an NFA weapon (i.e. machine gun). She is evil.

      Oh, I know. How she gets re-elected is beyond belief.

    20. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seems the oligarchs who demand mass-immigration into Western countries have fooled the public yet again by twisting words and truth.

      Trump didn't say "ban" muslims. He said deny them immigration for a temporary period until things could be straightened out. He didn't say anything about kicking already-American muslims out of the country, although many people have been convinced that's what was said. This has nothing to do with first amendment, since that only applies to American citizens. If you're a foreigner wanting to immigrate, you don't get those protections yet. Immigration into a country is a privilege at the discretion of the country in question, it is not a right. People seem to have no problems saying that driving is a privilege and not a right, yet this situation confounds them somehow.

      Many people think this is new for the USA, and have been trained by the media to think that it's akin to some WW2 Nazism. It's not. In fact, nazis and communists were already banned from immigrating to the USA, nobody seems to be up in arms about that. There was also a near 40-year immigration moratorium after 1926 or so to allow the wave of immigrants a period to assimilate. Do you know anything about Japan's immigration laws? They don't allow anybody to immigrate! I don't see the media outlets shitting on them, calling them racist, xenophobic nazis for not letting in non-Japanese. Why okay for them and not for USA?

      Exactly why is it that everyone else is allowed to promote their culture, to promote their race, to take pride in what they've made their countries and to protect their culture from dilution or harm from outside influences, but when white folks of the Western countries do the same thing, they get called racists and supremacists? People in the USA see this bullshit tactic for what it is and are getting mighty tired of it, and that's why Trump has the large amount of public support that he does.

    21. Re:So... by goose-incarnated · · Score: 0

      ...I expect Slashdot to thoroughly Savage Diane for her attempts to undermine internet freedom and privacy just as they savaged Trump for merely suggesting what Hillary Suggested.

      What was Trump savaged for again? You may have the savaging mixed up. They should be savaged for this, but Trump takes it 100000000 times further

      You do realise that you just said that persecution of people for thoughtcrime is 100000000 times better than bigotry? Are you actually insane?

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    22. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, I don't get all the hand-wringing over Trump. I still contend, and will until the primaries prove me wrong, is that Trump's continued presence is to make the eventual GOP candidate look moderate and sane enough that he'd be more exciting than whoever the Democrats decide to run.

      All it will take to beat the Democrats this time around is someone that people can like better than Hillary, and Trump is the fat friend people keep around to make them look so much prettier.

      And if you don't believe Hillary can be beaten by virtue of being on the "right" side, let me ask you if we had a President Gore, or President Kerry.

      -LaurenC

    23. Re: So... by RR · · Score: 1

      I voted against both Feinstein and Boxer. Feinstein rode in the success of Obama's reelection campaign against that horrible person, Mitt Romney, so much that the Republican Party didn't bother to nominate a real candidate to run against her. And Boxer easily defeated the challenge from that other horrible person, Carly Fiorina. In their most recent reelection campaigns, they each broke records for the most votes any senator has ever received, ever.

      --
      Have a nice time.
    24. Re: So... by TwoEyedJack · · Score: 1

      You might have a point. Illegal alien Mexicans are culturally Christian and they kill way more people in the US than do Muslims. I am not sure how to compare criminal acts like gang-related murder, robbery and rape to acts of terrorism like the Boston bombing and the shooting in CA last week. There were long periods in US history where there was no immigration. Maybe that is the answer.

    25. Re:So... by kmoser · · Score: 1

      You know it's bad when you have a suggestion for deletion of a freedom and it gets condemned by Dick Cheney!

      Yeah, there's no need to delete Muslims' freedom when you can just bomb them where they live.

    26. Re:So... by wyHunter · · Score: 1

      Um, yeah. Sure. Anything you say. If you're a Democrat on this board, you can commit murder and nobody cares.

    27. Re:So... by brantondaveperson · · Score: 1

      ISIS has publicly stated that they intend to seed terrorists into the pool of immigrants

      Yeah, they have. And if you somehow manage to prevent all people with beards coming into the country, I imagine they'll find a way to convince an extremist to shave before he shows up.

      I mean, how would you even 'ban muslims'? It doesn't even make any sense. You going to ask them? You people already ask whether or not they're terrorists on that silly little form you have people fill in. Are you going to ask if they're Muslims too? What if they lie? OMG!

    28. Re:So... by brantondaveperson · · Score: 1

      until things could be straightened out.

      Which means what, exactly? Since when, in the entire history of the world, have things been 'straightened out'? This is why Trump is a madman, and drags fools like you along with him. You don't even think for a moment about what he's actually saying.

    29. Re:So... by TwoEyedJack · · Score: 1

      Well, if you really believe that the government is doing exhaustive vetting of would-be immigrants, this should be a fairly easy determination to make. If you believe that the vetting is synonymous with rubber-stamping, maybe this would be a good reason to shut down *all* immigration. Lots of very successful countries do this. Japan, for instance. http://www.infowars.com/islami...

    30. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Simple, friend. Time has shown again and again that US voters are stupid (let's be fair, our voters are not really more intelligent).

  29. Open-source crypto by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I use open-source crypto.

    How is this going of affect me?

    1. Re: Open-source crypto by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You'll be an outlaw, of course.

      Enjoy prison.

  30. One way suicide bargain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    However there are a great many things the paying public "aren't allowed to know", and you can't mount a legal action against the government. Must be nice to insist everyone behave while you act like a spoiled brat.

    Go ahead. Invent yourself a master key. Note how all the criminals will be using private encryption that doesn't have backdoors. Note how this won't help you at all.
    Keep noting that when your master key leaks and every banking institution, corporation, industry and infrastructure collapses under a deluge of Chinese hacks.

    1. Re:One way suicide bargain by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      Go ahead. Invent yourself a master key. Note how all the criminals will be using private encryption that doesn't have backdoors. Note how this won't help you at all.

      Of course it will help! It will help sabotage political opposition, destroy Free Speech, and do all sorts of other things that benefit the established elite. That's why all those goddamn authoritarian fuckwads love the idea so much!

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    2. Re:One way suicide bargain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But at least, if all common email encryption has a legislatively-mandated back door, we'll all soon be able to read all of the Senator's private email.

  31. While we are at it... by Foundryman · · Score: 1

    Let's also seek legislation to allow officers to get warrants that allow them to read the minds of potential criminals so they know when they are lying. Because "I think there really is reason to have the ability"

  32. What does she want pierced? by charles05663 · · Score: 1

    The only thing she wants the government to pierce is the back hole that gets opened when they say grab your ankles...while they say it is good for you and for your own protection.

  33. Ugh - What did law enforcement do before?? by EStrat · · Score: 4, Interesting

    From TFA:

    Encryption played a significant role in the killing of two people during a shooting in Garland, Texas, earlier this year, Comey said. One of the shooters, Comey said, exchanged 109 encrypted messages with an "overseas terrorist."

    "We have no idea what was said because those messages were encrypted," he explained. "To this day, I cannot tell you what he said with that terrorist, 109 times the morning of that attack. That is a big problem."

    What did LE do before the internet?? There are all kinds of things that are/were said and done in this world, Mr. FBI, that you did not, will not, and often should not know. Why is that difficult for you to understand? Guy eats breakfast in a diner every morning; two weeks later he kills people. You don't know what was said in that diner, either. Should all diners be required to record all conversations that take place in their establishment, and forward them to the FBI?

    Wait, don't answer that, you probably think they should.

    1. Re:Ugh - What did law enforcement do before?? by Enigma2175 · · Score: 1

      Not to mention that the "killing of two people" was the deaths of the people conducting the attack. The attackers shot up a police car, hitting a security guard in the ankle, then they were both killed by return fire. No innocents were killed in the attack and the only (non-jihadist) injury was to the security guard. There is no evidence that an encryption backdoor would have changed anything, they are complaining that they couldn't read this guy's messages after he was already dead.

      Law enforcement and US intelligence already have unprecedented data on every person in the US, hell most of the people voluntarily carry a tracking device so the government can know where they are at all times. They can read every email and record every telephone conversation. But even with the massive amount of intel they have on everybody they still want MORE. They will never be satisfied until every person is under their complete control every minute of the day. At least in 1984 Winston Smith had a place in his apartment where he could get out of view of the telescreen, these days people don't have such luxury. Also, we have always been at war with Eastasia.

      --

      Enigma

  34. Old people yelling at clouds by JoeyRox · · Score: 1
  35. Teddy or Pipe Wrench by laurencetux · · Score: 1

    all you really have to do is either con the key out of your target or BEAT IT OUT

  36. OK you Republicans, now's your chance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Only reason why Feinstein keeps getting re-elected (not because Calif is a blue state full of liberals, Dianne pissed off her liberal base) is because any R candidate is more of a nut job. Nominate someone moderate and you'll for surely have a Republican Senator for California.

    1. Re:OK you Republicans, now's your chance by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      The Republican Party in California has more in common with the spotted owl than 1/10th of the U.S. population. The only way a Republican can get elected in the jungle primary system is to have two popular Democrats split the vote. A serious possibility for the 2016 election to replace Senator Boxer, if the GOP can find a "moderate" candidate.

    2. Re:OK you Republicans, now's your chance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Feinstein

      All Feinstein must do to bring her upper middle-class SJW constituency along on cryptographic back doors is argue that it's for investigating corporations, tax evading 1%-ers and "right-wing" "hate groups." Instant moral imperative.

    3. Re:OK you Republicans, now's your chance by nytes · · Score: 2

      If a moderate candidate runs on the GOP ticket, the Democrats will just take out ads questioning his "Republicanism" and the Republicans will vote for his opponent, just like they did when Gray Davis took out ads against Richard Riordan.

      California Republicans tend to be gullible. They can't pick a viable candidate to save their lives.

      --
      -- I have monkeys in my pants.
  37. I laugh at death... by Kevin+by+the+Beach · · Score: 1

    I wonder why the other issue about encryption has not been raised....drum roll please....

    Encrypted information takes up more storage space, and actually can cripple most storage systems because it does not "de-duplicate" . I just finished a project where we "unencrypted" a 20+ TB database because the new storage system we purchased couldn't just store the data as is.

    1. Re:I laugh at death... by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      I bet somebody will reply to explain why this causes some sort of horrible mathematical flaw that makes it insecure, but couldn't you just compress the information first, then encrypt the result?

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    2. Re:I laugh at death... by Kevin+by+the+Beach · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately most "state of the art" storage systems have compression and de-duplication based compression enabled by default. So, if you want the storage system to use it's cpu and cache memory efficiently you need to store simple files (clear text or equiv). 5:1 or better compression is easy for just about any storage vendor. JBOD storage has no issues storing previously compressed/encrypted data, because it doesn't attempt to enhance the operations.

      Simplistically:
      1. Compression removes common or repeating symbols and replaces each occurrence with a symbol in a table. (hopefully reducing the size)

      2. Encryption may add (SALT) data to the stream, before using an algorithm and key to obscure contents ( likely increasing size, and eliminating any repeating symbols)

      So if you Compress and Encrypt a stream before attempting to store it on a device that is also attempting to compress and encrypt before storing you will mostly eliminate any performance or storage (size reduction) gains. I observed a best of 1.06 : 1 compression ratio (and horrible performance) when attempting to store previously encrypted data.

  38. That's not how it works! by SumDog · · Score: 1

    I love how there is a fundamental misunderstanding of how encryption works. The whole Playstation argument is fucking stupid too. Microsoft/Sony will work with law enforcement to trace paedophiles who use their gaming networks (even though most abusers don't use any technology. They abuse people they know; usually close friends or family members. But that's a whole-nother issue).

    This goes back to SOPA, PIPPA and any other law about the Internet. Congressmen and Senators are typically students of law. They have little to no understanding of how technology works, yet they feel as if they can legislate it.

    If a law was passed requiring encryption backdoors, then you would literally be in the situation where only criminals could actually reliably use encryption. It's kinda hilarious when you think about it.

    1. Re:That's not how it works! by NormalVisual · · Score: 1

      This goes back to SOPA, PIPPA and any other law about the Internet. Congressmen and Senators are typically students of law. They have little to no understanding of how technology works, yet they feel as if they can legislate it.

      It's a real-life example of "if all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail". The law is that hammer.

      --
      Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
  39. REALLY think of the children by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have concern for your children, and your children's children and their childrens children, being attacked by thieves, predators and terrorists through the backdoors you'll be forcing on encryption.

  40. I don't say this often, I hope she dies soon. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This vampire queen needs a stake through the heart.

  41. Oh FFS, again? by ilsaloving · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Can this get any more formulaic?

    Is there a handbook on legislative tactics that specifically says, "If you can't get what you want any other way, emphatically shout THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!11eleventy!1!"

    Or is this tactic really that effective, so people continue to use it over and over?

    1. Re:Oh FFS, again? by macs4all · · Score: 1

      Or is this tactic really that effective, so people continue to use it over and over?

      The real problem is, that it is only ineffective on the people who DON'T vote...

    2. Re:Oh FFS, again? by fustakrakich · · Score: 2

      is this tactic really that effective, so people continue to use it over and over?

      Yes, it is. It appeals to the most basic of instincts, a direct link to the brain stem. Why even question anything that works so well?

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    3. Re:Oh FFS, again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It has been a viable strategy for quite a while.

      "The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation."

      - Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf

  42. Give the cops other superpowers too. by frovingslosh · · Score: 4, Funny

    Why doesn't Feinstein also add to her bill a clause giving the cops the power to fly and invulnerability? That is just as possible as legislating that cops will have the ability to break encryption.

    --
    I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
    1. Re:Give the cops other superpowers too. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you REALLY think the NSA folks who are behind all this are SO stupid ?

      What they want is backdoors in the OS, the processor, the hardware. Then you can invent a new crypto algo every wheek and they can still get your keypresses, your algo and the key material.

      Actually, they have this and want CONTINUED access.

      Because they must CONTROL PLEBS.

    2. Re:Give the cops other superpowers too. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am pretty sure that the law is against making encryption that the cops don't have the ability to break.

      This is not about strengthening cops, but weakening the populous.

  43. legislate Pi = 3 while you're at it. by Thud457 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Math is hard.

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    1. Re:legislate Pi = 3 while you're at it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You are so right:

      "Anyone who cannot cope with mathematics is not fully human. At best he is a tolerable subhuman who has learned to wear shoes, bathe and not make messes in the house."
      — Robert Heinlein

      Nothing needed to add to that quote to convey my thoughts on Sen. Feinstein's proposal.

    2. Re:legislate Pi = 3 while you're at it. by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Mathematics fatal flaw is that it does not account for the irrational human.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    3. Re:legislate Pi = 3 while you're at it. by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      Actually, as I understand it, that particular piece of legislation was filled with enough equations to conceal the fact that it defined pi as NINE, not three....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    4. Re:legislate Pi = 3 while you're at it. by Barefoot+Monkey · · Score: 1

      Mathematics fatal flaw is that it does not account for the irrational human.

      It's like they say, irrationality is the square root of all evil.

    5. Re:legislate Pi = 3 while you're at it. by TapeCutter · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Pi does not account for general relativity, a black hole can bend space space such that Pi = 3.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    6. Re:legislate Pi = 3 while you're at it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So it's okay to call people who have innate problems understanding mathematics "subhuman", yet if you apply that label to someone who has chosen to, say, follow a particular religion, you get accused of hate speech. Got it. I think I'm starting to understand how things work in this modern world. Hypocrisy is cool, it seems.

    7. Re:legislate Pi = 3 while you're at it. by KGIII · · Score: 1

      It does. They're known as statistical anomalies or outliers and are accounted for. How do I know? Well, I'm a mathematician who modeled traffic. Vehicular traffic is fairly tame compared to the compute power required to model pedestrians. You humans are damned close to chaos. Anyhow, no, they're accounted for. They're not perfectly modeled but they're accounted for. We know that, on average, X% of people will do something stupid and engineer around it (where possible) or accept it and move on. Perfection is not an option.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  44. She knows exactly what she wants, however by judoguy · · Score: 2
    She, like just about every Democrat politician (and most Republican ones too) wants to be high up in a totalitarian police state. No real mystery here.

    Don't get all caught up and just focus on her stupid statements. Focus on the real issue: A never ending struggle to screw you and me. And our kids. Forever and ever.

    --
    Peace is easy to achieve, just surrender. Liberty is much harder get/keep.
    1. Re:She knows exactly what she wants, however by waspleg · · Score: 1

      I'm actually reading "A Brave New World" right now. It was written about a year before she was born. Much of the subtext is accurate and scary despite some of the fanciful sci-fi predictions like ubiquitous helicopters.

    2. Re:She knows exactly what she wants, however by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...despite some of the fanciful sci-fi predictions like ubiquitous helicopters.

      That prediction is accurate, except that the author did not expect them to be unmanned, remotely controlled, and sized from the palm of your hand up to a small car.

    3. Re:She knows exactly what she wants, however by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but ubiquitous drones.....

  45. and frankly my dear fellow... by Lead+Butthead · · Score: 4, Insightful

    she deserved no less. she's an embarrassment to the state of California and the United States. (No, I did not vote for her or her "friend" Boxer.)

    --
    ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
    1. Re:and frankly my dear fellow... by Trepidity · · Score: 4, Insightful

      She's been pretty frequently castigated around here too. A by-no-means-exhaustive list of previous Slashdot articles on Feinstein doing or proposing stupid things: videogame control, persecuting Snowden, trying to kill net neutrality, defending NSA surveillance, etc.

      On a side note, her husband, a hedge-fund manager who somehow got himself appointed to the University of California board of regents, isn't too great either.

    2. Re:and frankly my dear fellow... by fustakrakich · · Score: 2

      Oh, if only I could show the money she brings in, then you would understand the nature and size of her support... There is no ideology in their game. It is silly to apply ours to it or them.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    3. Re:and frankly my dear fellow... by Firethorn · · Score: 3, Informative

      She's a frequent offender over on my gun boards as well. Having examined her record, I would actually rate her as a Fascist. There is rarely an expansion of government power that she doesn't support. She's pretty far over on the 'statist' side of the spectrum.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    4. Re:and frankly my dear fellow... by russotto · · Score: 3, Insightful

      She also wants to ban radio-controlled model aircraft, and not just guns but body armor. If there's a horrible idea that Feinstein _isn't_ strongly in favor of, it's probably just because she hasn't heard it yet.

    5. Re:and frankly my dear fellow... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      She's part of Team Soros, along with all his underhanded funding.

    6. Re:and frankly my dear fellow... by silentcoder · · Score: 0

      Yep, idiots do sometimes run as democrats. Still beats the GOP where being one is apparently a job requirement.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    7. Re:and frankly my dear fellow... by Mojo+Geek · · Score: 1

      On the other hand she knows to distrust her descendants in the form of her grandchildren.

    8. Re:and frankly my dear fellow... by wyHunter · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Typical democrat.

    9. Re:and frankly my dear fellow... by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      Actually, she's an extreme democrat; most democrats at least occasionally see legislation that they don't like and approve of some limitations on government power.

      Feinstein has only one hammer in her toolbox - every problem is to be addressed by the government.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
  46. Don't underestimate Feinstein by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Remember, this is the crone who brought us the first AWB.

    When questioned, she couldn't even articulate what an assault weapon was ("they're guns that have a piece that goes up"). Remember that?

    1. Re:Don't underestimate Feinstein by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, that was Carolyn McCarthy of New York, and "a shoulder thing that goes up" was her clueless answer regarding what a barrel shroud was. McCarthy wasn't the author of the original AWB either - she introduced a bill in 2007 to re-authorize Feinstein's original legislation that had expired in 2004.

    2. Re:Don't underestimate Feinstein by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When questioned, she couldn't even articulate what an assault weapon was ("they're guns that have a piece that goes up"). Remember that?

      You're mixing up Carolyn McCarthy and Feinstein, your post is offtopic.

  47. lock her up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    She OK with them talking to predators if it is not encrypted?!?

    child abuse!

    1. Re:lock her up by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      Don't consoles have parent locks so parents can log their kids' chats?

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    2. Re:lock her up by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 2

      She is the same senator that suggested that if we ban guns, the bad guys will put theirs down, because that is human nature.

      She is the same senator that said that High Power Rifles make it "Legal to hunt humans"

      But since she has a (D) after her name, she is better than any (R), (L) or (I) in the state of California (or so I am told)

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    3. Re:lock her up by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      That's to prevent your kids from threatening to kill and rape other people on the internet. They can however still call in fake threats to 911 and have the swat team burst into your house pointing automatic weapons in your face.

  48. Feinstein: Have you got any neurons that work? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't be a bigger ass than you already are, Feinstein:

        If you are concerned that your grandchild is doing something that might harm him, then don't let them do that.

  49. Feinstein make me think of the Dead Kennedys by NotDrWho · · Score: 1

    Diane "Buttlicker" Feinstein. You had it right all along, Jello.

    --
    SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
    1. Re:Feinstein make me think of the Dead Kennedys by Lawrence_Bird · · Score: 1

      I was hoping someone else would remember! https://www.youtube.com/watch?... The Dragon Lady with no fuckin heart!

  50. You exerable c-word by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

    The path towards a police state justified by terrorism and the always reliable pedophilia.

    What surprises me most about this miserable waste of skin is that she's from supposed progressive California.

    1. Re:You exerable c-word by dfsmith · · Score: 1

      What surprises me most about this miserable waste of skin is that she's from supposed progressive California.

      Californians realized years ago that the best way to get her out of state is to send her to D.C., where she can't do anything to mess things up.*

      * Should append: "worse".

    2. Re:You exerable c-word by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What surprises me most about this miserable waste of skin is that she's from supposed progressive California.

      Californians realized years ago that the best way to get her out of state is to send her to D.C., where she can't do anything to mess things up.*

      * Should append: "worse".

      Umm, she SPONSORED the Patriot Act and H1B visa programs.

      She is EXTREMELY against the First Amendment.

      She's in bed with the "content industry" over copyright, etc.

      And if you think Obamacare is a total cock up, it wouldn't have passed with her. (and it IS a total cock-up since it's really just Federal-mandated "you will BUY this product from these companies" - how the fuck did the Supreme Court uphold THAT?!?!! Seriously - "you must buy a purple school bus that runs on unicorn farts" - would THAT be Constitutional? Of course, statists love it...)

    3. Re:You exerable c-word by judoguy · · Score: 2

      The path towards a police state justified by terrorism and the always reliable pedophilia. What surprises me most about this miserable waste of skin is that she's from supposed progressive California.

      This is the EXACT definition of "progressive". More and more powerful government. In every area of *citizens* lives. Literally the only freedom that progressives acknowledge is abortion. Nothing else. I'm all for a woman's right to make that choice, but damn, it's not the be all and end all of liberty.

      --
      Peace is easy to achieve, just surrender. Liberty is much harder get/keep.
    4. Re:You exerable c-word by Khashishi · · Score: 1

      progressive
      prresiv/
      adjective
      2. (of a group, person, or idea) favoring or implementing social reform or new, liberal ideas.
      "a relatively progressive governor"

  51. That woman... by FuegoFuerte · · Score: 1

    ...is an enemy of freedom. How she keeps getting re-elected, I'll never understand. She ought to be tried for sedition, and hanged after being convicted by a jury of her peers.

    1. Re:That woman... by LessThanObvious · · Score: 1

      Taking an oath to support and defend the constitution and then spending your career trying to undermine it sounds criminal to me. I'll throw a party the day she retires. Then again if Kamala Harris takes her place I still may have to leave the state.

  52. This is getting serious by unencode200x · · Score: 2

    It's really concerning that we're seeing this trend all over the world. Even though most of these dinosaur-age politicians barely have a clue about encryption and technology in general they are now in a position to cause a lot of harm. Some of it may be unwittingly, perhaps the NSA folks are saying that they can't stop the terrorists without this.

    Consider that so many businesses and people have centralized their information into "the cloud" and more are moving everyday. Centralizing puts us all in a much weaker position since the cloud providers (Amazon, Google, Microsoft, Rackspace, etc.) will have to follow these potential laws.

    In contrast, before this cloud centralization millions of servers would have to be updated all over the country and at a minimum it would take much longer to implement something like this. People and companies would also have more options and control over their data.

    In any case, it's disappointing to me that this is happening in the United States. It reminds me of why my father risked his life fleeing from the communist country I was born in.

    Lastly, it's not going to matter anyway. The criminals will still break the law and probably move to even more encrypted/secured services.

    --

    Chance favors the prepared mind.
    Perfect is the enemy of good.
  53. Liberal Fascism by SuperKendall · · Score: 0

    Note it's not a Republican proposing this, it's a Democrat.

    Beware ANY group of people who believe government should oversee your life, because this is where you end up.

    Throughout history ALL fascists have been "progressive".

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Liberal Fascism by sasparillascott · · Score: 0

      Dude, that's because the GOP leader of the Intelligence Committee on the Senate, Senator R. Burr (who is actually in power there) would agree with her and is quite deep in the pocket of the Intelligence Agencies as well. There is only one Senator on that committee (Wyden) that actually sees all this monitoring and proposed outlawing of encryption as a bad thing - and that committee proposes the laws in this area that go the general Senate to get voted on and enacted. Party makes no difference...it was the GOP that brought all this upon us with Bush (and why they defend and promote it)...Obama and Co. are just finishing the job.

      As for Fascism...the closest thing we have to someone pushing up with that is Trump...he actually has armed groups cheering him on...he is villanizing marginal groups of the population and a big chunk of the U.S. population is cheering him on...it wouldn't take much more for the Brown/Trump Shirts to be around. These dangers can come from anywhere...any party (as can be seen on the Intelligence Committee), whether they're Democrats or Republicans makes no difference. JMHO...

    2. Re:Liberal Fascism by fuzznutz · · Score: 2

      “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”

      - C.S. Lewis

    3. Re:Liberal Fascism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Party makes no difference...it was the GOP that brought all this upon us with Bush (and why they defend and promote it)...Obama and Co. are just finishing the job.

      I half agree - party certainly makes no difference on these issues. But this didn't start with Bush 43, unless you've forgotten Bill Clinton's Clipper Chip, or forgotten COINTELPRO, or forgotten why Phil Zimmerman created PGP. Governments always want less privacy for the people, often under the guise of protection and security, and on rare occasions that motivation may be genuine. I can't be sure in Feinstein's case, as she's highly resistant to logic and facts which do not accord with her own subjective positions. Surely, someone must have posited a corollary of Poe's Law for politicians. She may genuinely believe she's doing a good thing, which I would consider to be scarier than a corrupt politician proposing the same legislation.

      - T

  54. Her own example shows how pointless this bill is by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This bill would require a court order before the encryption can be "pierced".

    Well, if you have a court order, you don't need to pierce the encryption - if the suspect fails to give you access to the messages in question, you can lock him up for failure to comply with a court order! And you can keep him there indefinitely until he complies! THE GRANDKIDS ARE SAFE!!

    --
    #DeleteChrome
  55. But they already can... by rgbatduke · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ... force you to decrypt any encrypted document with a court order. In fact, the law is so broad that if you go into court and the judge says "please give these nice officers the encryption keys for your hard drive" and you say "no", they can say "OK, I'll just put you in jail for contempt of court, without bail, until you do." Which can literally be forever. There are no limits that I know of for jail time for contempt of court for an ongoing refusal to comply with a court order. So it can literally be life not even in prison, in JAIL, until you do.

    If th issue is terrorism, the powers are even broader and can involve you being sent to a concentration ca -- I mean "federal jail on a remote island" until you cough up a lot more than just the keys.

    What they want is the power to read dynamical communication streams in real-time, because decrypting them is often too difficult even for the NSA and because a lot of them are encrypted with one-time or digitally saved keys so that a user CAN'T just cough them up. If my ssh private keys went away, do you think I have them memorized? NOBODY could decrypt my old network traffic, not even me!

    Now we just have to wait a bit for the legislative branch to realize that a) we lack the theorems needed to make their nifty idea work; and b) any end user can trivially work around it by simply exchanging keys for one of the known secure algorithms; c) it isn't necessary for any saved, recorded data; and d) it isn't constitutional. It's exactly like trying to pass legislature that would require all house keys to be "registered" and constructed in such a way that a master key in the possession of the police would open them. Good luck with that one.

    Besides, they already can. The key is called a "brute force", and if they use it, yeah, they have to go up against the effort the householder put in to stopping brute force entry. If their "house" is a repurposed bomb shelter with six foot thick concrete walls, good luck to them.

    rgb

    --
    Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. --- Bertrand Russell.
    1. Re:But they already can... by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 2

      In the US, a password cannot be forced from you as it would violate your 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination. Presumably that would include a massive key, or where it is. However, biometric data like a finger swipe, sux to be u.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    2. Re:But they already can... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... force you to decrypt any encrypted document with a court order. In fact, the law is so broad that if you go into court and the judge says "please give these nice officers the encryption keys for your hard drive" and you say "no", they can say "OK, I'll just put you in jail for contempt of court, without bail, until you do." Which can literally be forever. There are no limits that I know of for jail time for contempt of court for an ongoing refusal to comply with a court order. So it can literally be life not even in prison, in JAIL, until you do.

      Actually this is not the case in the US.

      The Fifth Amendment *may* provide protection in this regard, but it has not been tested.

      I know, someone right now is thinking smugly of mentioning In re Boucher or many of the other cases where it was almost tested, but what they're forgetting is that in all of those cases there were circumstances which meant that the accused had *already* revealed encrypted information and was only later trying to avoid having to decrypt the data. Same for the other case (the name of which escapes me) regarding the woman who confirmed (while in prison, if I recall) that decryption of her data would reveal the expected evidence against her.

      What has not been tested is whether you can be jailed for simply refusing to provide a key to data, the contents and legality of which is entirely unknown.

      Given that decryption is, by definition, the creation of data, being compelled to create data which incriminates ones self could well be considered a Fifth Amendment violation. (The argument for this has been advanced by people much smarter than I.)

      So no, it's not that clear-cut in the US.

    3. Re:But they already can... by Enigma2175 · · Score: 1

      In the US, a password cannot be forced from you as it would violate your 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination.

      Buahahahahahaha nope! It's adorable how you think the government obeys the constitution that created it.

      --

      Enigma

    4. Re:But they already can... by rgbatduke · · Score: 1

      I think you are mistaken. I think they cannot force you to cough up the password without a warrant or court order. I think this because I once gave an invited talk on this very subject to a law enforcement symposium, and an FBI agent supported by his pals in both the feeb and regular law enforcement told me this. Now, I'll bet he is a more authoritative voice than you are. If anything, I imagine it has gotten easier to force a password since then by legal coercion.

      To cite a crude analogy, if the DEA shows up at your doorstep and says "Please sir, we would like to come in and see if you have a meth lab in your basement." you have a perfect right to say now, constitutionally guaranteed. If they show up at the same doorstep and meet you outside and show you a warrant and ask you politely to unlock the door to let them in, the fact that you do have a meth lab in your basement and will "incriminate yourself" by opening the door will not save you in court. If your house were unopenable (those six foot thick concrete walls) and could only easily/cheaply be opened by means of a combination lock, you bet your sweet bippy that the court could order you to divulge the password or rot eternally in jail for contempt.

      It's the warrantless search that is at issue here. They want to be able to search your house with or without your presence or knowledge, with or without a key, and with or without a warrant being presented to you or any of your legal representatives. We can only wonder about whether or not a warrant will be required at all, and we don't HAVE to wonder that if all locks have to be openable with some sort of universal combination or key, it won't be long before our house can be entered at will by individuals who aren't even nominally members of the government or any official agency, who might USE our basement to make meth in, without our knowledge.

      rgb

      --
      Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. --- Bertrand Russell.
    5. Re:But they already can... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you are mistaken. I think they cannot force you to cough up the password without a warrant or court order. I think this because I once gave an invited talk on this very subject to a law enforcement symposium, and an FBI agent supported by his pals in both the feeb and regular law enforcement told me this. Now, I'll bet he is a more authoritative voice than you are. If anything, I imagine it has gotten easier to force a password since then by legal coercion.

      You know who is an even more authoritative voice than said "FBI agent"? Federal Judge Mark Kearney http://www.techtimes.com/articles/89960/20151001/your-phone-password-is-protected-by-the-fifth-amendment-authorities-cant-make-you-unlock-it.htm/

  56. sigh by JustNiz · · Score: 1

    Why are politicians allowed to make any rules over something they clearly don't even understand the basics about?
    This woman should and would have been laughed out the hall if any of the others listening to her even had the first clue either.

  57. Please pretty please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Propose legislation that everyone gets a pony next!

  58. 3rd Party Clearing Houses by richardoz · · Score: 1

    It's not necessary that encrypted traffic be "pierceable". It's that the Govt will mandate that all traffic go through 3rd party (man in the middle) clearing houses. These companies will store the data encrypted and only decrypt it when issued a court order. So any point to point encrypted traffic will likely be illegal; and if possible blocked from occurring. Yuk..

    --
    All the worlds indeed a .sig, and we are mearly players..
    1. Re:3rd Party Clearing Houses by suutar · · Score: 1

      That'll last til the first time they decrypt something and find another layer of encryption. After that it'll be decrypted and analyzed in real time to see if it looks like reasonable traffic. I see a bright future for steganography.

    2. Re:3rd Party Clearing Houses by fnj · · Score: 1

      It's not necessary that encrypted traffic be "pierceable". It's that the Govt will mandate that all traffic go through 3rd party (man in the middle) clearing houses. These companies will store the data encrypted and only decrypt it when issued a court order. So any point to point encrypted traffic will likely be illegal; and if possible blocked from occurring. Yuk..

      Um... and exactly how do these clueless morons propose to decrypt pgp/gpg? Using magic pixie dust?

    3. Re:3rd Party Clearing Houses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean point to point like business VPNs? So the clearing houses (presumably government controlled) will prevent China or Russia from stealing trade secrets? That should keep the REST of the business from moving to Canada, Mexico, Germany, etc. Good way to drum up tax revenue... for FOREIGN governments.

      lol captcha = prosper

  59. Lololol by barbariccow · · Score: 1

    If it's a criminal act to encrypt, then only the criminals have encryption. That's good, because at least when they're selling all your stolen data and credit card info, THEIR transactions will be secure.

  60. Says you by s.petry · · Score: 5, Interesting

    82 years old with no fucking clue what she's talking about.

    I don't buy the ignorance gag for a minute. Politicians can hear both sides of every argument, and generally do. They are all well educated, and have well educated staff around them all the time. When it's convenient for them to look dumb, they play their role and look dumb. And the asinine measure that people pushed back against becomes an incremental step toward their agenda, and in extreme cases Black Projects that the citizens don't know about for decades.

    For nearly half a century I have seen people believe the idiot gag and remain amazed at how far down the shitter we have gone in so little time. Meanwhile, a few people said what I just did.. and they have predicted correctly.

    --

    -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    1. Re:Says you by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Politicians can hear both sides of every argument, and generally do. They are all well educated, and have well educated staff around them all the time.

      Don't confuse educated with smart. Politicians are surrounded by like minded politicians all with an agenda and out for themselves. When they aren't all a bunch of ex lawyers they are well educated in the art of "political science". They are not scientists, or engineers and they don't surround themselves with such either.

      I would bet my left testicle that the vast majority believe in their own bullshit, that they have no clue, and that they simply parrot for whoever donated the most to their campaign or paid for the best lobbyist. You only have to hear them discuss the "opposite" side to their argument to understand how they simply shut down and shut in when someone says something they disagree with.

    2. Re: Says you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is why campaign contributions should be illegal.

  61. Dianne Feinstein IS a bad guy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So it doesn't surprise me that she's pushing legislation favorable to her friends. Plus, she's so ugly, stupid and obviously corrupt, that I wouldn't like my kids to meet her, they wouldn't be safe.

  62. Politicians.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ....dumbest people I know.

  63. I tried to warn you all by DarkOx · · Score: 1

    Politically something WILL be done, they have racheted up the FUD levels to the point the public wants more security theater.

    I still say the best course is to assuage the fear by making the Internet a little less global along the lines of Trumps proposal to shut certain parts of it down. The alternative is you are going to have this kinda a crap forced on you. A broken by design system where everything is monitored by the thought police and you had better be running some defined back doored per-approved protocol or someone will be sent over to kick in your actual front door.

    Politically this is where its headed right now. I would rather just say the Internet is going to be US - EU - China + [ others that conditionally want to participate ] from now on and still have a somewhat free and flexible network.

    --
    Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    1. Re:I tried to warn you all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe we should put our own Great Firewall in... blocking China, Russia, and most of eastern Europe.

    2. Re:I tried to warn you all by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      I think that is exactly what we should given the situation. Its apparent to me there is a demand to 'do something' about the Internet. I wish we could sensibly leave well enough alone and recognize that while terrorists and criminals might abuse it the network isn't the problem.

      Unfortunately just like with air travel the drum beat for some kind of action is getting pretty loud. The TSA is ineffective and may actually harm the overall security posture. I don't want to see the same thing happen to the Internet at least not domestically.

      I would rather passify the 'think of the children and OMG terrists' by adding a few route filters to BGP and severing a few undersea cables and SAT links, than going the online version of 1984 route. We don't want to willfully force broken encryption technology on everyone. That will make us less safe. We don't want the government regulating protocols and having to have monitoring capability built into everything, that will kill innovation.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
  64. Would the court grant more than merely a blessing? by dmomo · · Score: 2

    So, is she proposing that the authorities have the tool / keys to do this, but must pinky swear not to use it without permission?
    If they were in earnest about the need for a warrant / oversight, then they should have no reservation about agreeing for it to actually be impossible for the authorities to "pierce" communication without being first granted specific, targeted keys to do so. This would be a one-time expiring key pairing between the communications provider and the Court, which is handed to the authorities.

    I suspect they would decline this solution, because it isn't a carte blanche opportunity to monitor at their own discretion.

  65. Politicians... by matbury · · Score: 1

    ...really don't matter any more. They don't feel the need to understand the things they're legislating for and what the likely consequences will be, e.g. weakening encryption in the USA will make banks, power stations, public records, congress' computers, etc. more vulnerable to cyber attacks. They're simply relaying their paymasters' wishes, mostly verbatim. Some of the documents they use even have embedded metadata from the corporate think tanks and lobby groups that originally wrote them. They should at least learn about document metadata to avoid such embarrassment, otherwise we can replace them with any old popular idiot, you know, like has-been Hollywood B-movie actors ;)

  66. Cant we make it a law.... by tommyatomic · · Score: 1

    ....That lawmakers have the pass a test after receiving rudimentary education on anything they might make a law on.

    This lawmaker completely fails maths. Its almost as bad as if congress proposed a bill to repeal the laws of thermodynamics

  67. WTF? by stackOVFL · · Score: 1

    How is being able to read encrypted data, with a court order, going to prevent anything? Are they going to get a court order to read it real time? How would they know who to snoop on? The gov had no idea this latest spontaneous act of terrorism was going to happen and could not have prevented it. All that stuff they have gotten to show what terrifying terrorists these nut cases were was gotten after the act. I'm also going to call that information "plain text" as I didn't hear how they got keys to decrypt it. I'm just not following how the gov can read minds with this new power to circumvent encryption and save anyone. You can't predict random. Sorry you just can't. Oh they may get lucky once in awhile but it was just a guess on the gov's part mostly and not enough to justify handing the keys to millions of peoples private information over. F. U. D. We want more power over your little lives. That is all it is.

  68. Slippery Slope by sgrover · · Score: 1

    And her next bill will be to put a microphone and camera in every house, I'm sure.

  69. What is so fucking hard to understand? by DahGhostfacedFiddlah · · Score: 1

    1) At some point in the past, I've handed you a password
    2) I math a secret, resulting in gibberish
    3) You math my gibberish with your password, resulting in my secret.

    At exactly what fucking point does anyone expect the gov't to be able to do anything? No one was involved except the two communicating parties!

    If you're particularly stupid or fascist, you can claim that the carriers could prevent it, but then you're saying every single bit that passes through their lines must be 100% decrypted and understood to make sure no "unpierceable" encrypted bits get through. And that's ignoring the obvious problem of steganography.

    Idiots.

    1. Re:What is so fucking hard to understand? by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      Who needs steganography?

      Hey buddy, we're all set for the party--got a case each of Bud Light and Miller. Jimmy said he'll be here by 7:15. Come on over anytime after that.

      We're ready to blow up the Statehouse--we obtained the code for the security system and the C4 has arrived. We'll do it on July 15th as previously agreed.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    2. Re:What is so fucking hard to understand? by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Waaah, a terrorist! Grab him! He uses slashdot to communicate with his evil associates!

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  70. Next up! by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

    People will not be allowed to whisper things or pass notes to each other or send private letters ... or say/write anything without a government "listener" present to monitor the exchange. (And, of course, another listener when that information is subsequently recorded, etc...)

    And... that about solves it.

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
  71. Here is their spiritual leader by Tokolosh · · Score: 1

    Father Coughlin is the chaplain of the SJWs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    --
    Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
  72. and just like that... more jobs moved off shore by rbgnr111 · · Score: 1

    So, if the US is one of the main innovators in encryption, if this is done, why would anyone trust encryption software made in the US? Doing this cripples US security, firewall, and any other encryption vendors, and creates new opportunities offshore for companies who won't compromise security, and can make strong encryption.

  73. Re:Lawmakers don't understand technology = AMEN by BoRegardless · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Less secure means that security conscious users will try to circumvent the restrictions, too.

    I'll bet most parents don't know what their kids are sending and receiving right now in all our devices. Kids either get proper training early on from parents or not.

    Even if you "force" the bad guys to get new computing devices (LOL), the brainless legislator doesn't realize that there are images which look normal and are viewable by anyone to have embedded proprietary information that only the sender and recipient know of and whether secret messages exist or not. There is NO ENCRYPTION for viewing the image itself.

    Bad guys are always going to be able to create ways to pass secret messages.

  74. Intercepted SMS by fnj · · Score: 2

    "The barbecue is set for September 22. Tell Ahmed to bring the burgers and Moe the chips."

    Sir, it's some kind of code. Call up AT&T and find out what "burgers" stands for and what "chips" stand for. You'll need a warrant. Judge LeRoy is a dependable rubber stamp.

    1. Re:Intercepted SMS by MitchDev · · Score: 1

      No kidding, These politicians just prove their stupidity more and more with every word that comes out of their mouths

    2. Re:Intercepted SMS by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      Heh. Great minds. But is Alice dead or deceased?

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  75. No... FUCK OFF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    /eom

  76. "Top" Senator? by jcr · · Score: 2

    FineSwine is more accurately described as a bottom-feeding scumbag.

    The great tragedy of Harvey Milk's assassination is that FineSwine was able to milk it to get a senate nomination.

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    1. Re:"Top" Senator? by sabbede · · Score: 1

      Well, it's not a description of quality or character, just position (rank) in the Senate and her party. Framing it like that is just silly, just say what we're all thinking: Feinstein is a doody-head.

  77. On the flip side by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's funny how politicians are up in arms for exposing encryption until it's their privacy that is affected. Sound like a particular politician from New York that we know? The worst part is that suggested door to encryption swings both ways, and completely defeats the entire purpose of encryption for security, when suggestions to "pierce" encryption is even remotely entertained.

  78. Clipper chip redux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We've been through this shit decades ago... For fuck's sake.

  79. In plain language.... by MarkvW · · Score: 1

    Please submit all your sensitive conversations, including sensitive political conversations, to the Department of Privacy. The Department will guarantee your privacy unless subsequently directed otherwise by statute, or court of competent jurisdiction, or lawful executive order. Please be advised that the Government will not be liable for any unauthorized discharge of escrowed private information.

  80. TIL: Technically illiterate politicians dangerous! by gestalt_n_pepper · · Score: 1

    Legislation like this puts us on the road to dictatorship. Perhaps Ms. Feinstein should join up with Mr. Trump.

    Aside from this, it's just not possible. A few agreed upon phrases in plain text (e.g. "The chocolates are ready to be opened on the plane) and no encryption is necessary at all.

    Blaming encryption is just more flailing about by willfully ignorant political hacks who are unwilling or unable to actually think through a real world problem.

    --
    Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
  81. Hmmm... by MitchDev · · Score: 1

    Another Senator to add to the list of "Traitors to the American people" list

  82. OMG LOL by sootman · · Score: 1

    "Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) will seek legislation requiring the ability to "pierce" through encryption to allow American law enforcement to read protected communications with a court order." [emphasis mine]

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAAHAHA.

    How 'bout we pass some legislation that things that should only happen with a court order, only happen with a court order?!?!?

    --
    Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
  83. Oh really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "I have concern about a PlayStation that my grandchildren might use," she said, "and a predator getting on the other end, and talking to them, and it's all encrypted."

    I have a concern that maybe, just maybe someone should be supervising your grandchildren a little more carefully. Like maybe their parents. But don't use their poor parenting as an excuse to be able to snoop in my email or other communications.

  84. She ought to be Trumps running mate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    She ought to be Trumps running mate

  85. A non solution to the wrong problem. by taustin · · Score: 1

    If she's worried about her grandchildren talking to child molesters on their PlayStation, perhaps she should talk to their parents about keeping an eye on what Junior is doing in his bedroom without supervision - you know, where encryption doesn't matter because they can just read the damn screen - instead of creating a backdoor that the child molesters can use to spy on Little Johnny and plan their kidnapping out of his bedroom because they know that the parents don't pay any attention to him while he's jerking off to porn on his PlayStation.

    Or maybe "think of the children" is, as usual, a load of shit excuse to invade people's privacy, and expand the power of government.

  86. Politician's ignorance and special agenda ftl by Stolpskott · · Score: 1

    I am going to be generous to Senator Feinstein, and assume that she has no technical/IT knowledge, so is reliant on staffers and advice from lobbyists about what the benefits and consequences of something like this would be. I could be wrong, and it could be that she is fully aware of the consequences, but a short-term benefit for the surveillance state and a long-term open door for cyber-crime does not seem like a politically shrewd move.
    However, that in itself presents a problem - if we assume that this one politician has no first-hand working knowledge of the consequences of what she is proposing, then we would also have to assume that many other members of Congress and the Senate, plus many other political and legislation bodies around the world, similarly have little or no understanding of (a) the way computers and the Internet work, and (b) the consequences of weakening encryption in this way. If those assumptions are true, how can those individuals (or even those institutions, if the level of ignorance is at enough of a critical mass to hamper an intelligent debate on the subject) be trusted or expected to craft effective, meaningful and beneficial legislation on the topic?
    Answer, they cannot. Hence the reason we have expert advisors and so on... who also need to be both independent and also be SEEN to be independent.

    Ahh crap, we're screwed.

  87. Question should be by future+assassin · · Score: 1

    how is this person qualified to be a senator and try to implement laws when she brought up her own children to allow their kids (her grandchildren) unsupervised chats on online chat rooms while playing violent games where people are murdered.

    --
    by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
  88. Propaganda. by L.+J.+Beauregard · · Score: 1

    FTFA: "A spokesman for Feinstein's office told the Daily Dot in an email that the senator has been working with Judiciary Committee Chairman Richard Burr (R-N.C.) the issue of encryption and that Burr's office is taking the lead on potential legislation."

    Richard Burr is not in the "Democrat Party", whatever that is. S/h/it is not in the "Democratic Party" either. S/h/it is a tea-partying Republican.

    --
    Ooh, moderator points! Five more idjits go to Minus One Hell!
    Delendae sunt RIAA, MPAA et Windoze
  89. She's as crazy as Trump on this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Someone point out to her that she's as crazy as Trump on this one?

    She's always been a proponent of terrible ideas like this, though.

  90. grandma needs to lock her wifi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Normal people lock their doors to keep predators out of their home and away from their children. Grandma should learn how to lock down her wifi to keep internet strangers out of their house. Not install security cameras in her house and give the PD permission to spy on them.

  91. The worst senator by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dianne Feinstein is the worst fucking senator ever. As a Californian, I'm sorry you have to put up with her bullshit, but she is impossible to vote out of office. Hopefully she retires or dies soon so we can try to elect a non-shithead senator.

  92. its diane fineswine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    She IS "Think of the Children". Coming after your guns and now your computer...

  93. Little White Rabbits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One key hides you larger,
    One key hides you small,
    and the ones that big mother gives you, don't do anything at all.

  94. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  95. I Hate My California Self by RecursiveLoop · · Score: 1

    I've only been ashamed to be a Californian twice in my life, when Prop 8 (2008) passed, and this.......

    1. Re:I Hate My California Self by jnaujok · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Really? You haven't been paying much attention...

      Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) after the San Bernadino shootings -- "Sensible gun laws work! We've proven it in California." link She is apparently unaware of what state San Bernadino is in.

      Representative Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) with the debt spiraling upwards at close to $1.25T per year and insurance premiums are jumping as much as 50% per year - "ObamaCare is lowering costs and the deficit." link

      Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) -- “Every month that we do not have an economic recovery package 500 million Americans lose their jobs.” – in a nation with 307 million people.

      Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) -- “We have federal regulations and state laws that prohibit hunting ducks with more than three rounds, and yet it’s legal to hunt humans with 15-round, 30-round, even 150-round magazines.". Apparently, she doesn't know that it's illegal to hunt humans with any number of rounds.

      She (Feinstein) also believes that allowing people to make calls from an airplane will result in uncontrollable brawling amongst the passengers. link

      Or, her (Feinstein's) fine opinion of our Veterans: "All vets are mentally ill in some way and government should prevent them from owning firearms." link

      Not to mention Feinstein's flip-flopping on this very issue [encryption]. In October, she said, "Millions of personal records and hundreds of billions of dollars fall victim to cyber-attacks every year, and we’ve done little to stem the tide." In other words, calling for enhanced cyber-security, yet only a month ago, "I can say this. [FBI] Director [James Comey] and, I think John Brennan, would agree, that the Achilles Heel in the internet is encryption. Because there are now... it's a black web! And there's no way of piercing it. And this is even in commercial products!"link

      “Those who survived the San Francisco earthquake said, ‘Thank God, I’m still alive.’ But, of course, those who died, their lives will never be the same again.” – Sen. Barbara Boxer

      “It [marijuana] will still be legal under federal law.” Senator Dianne Feinstein claiming that marijuana is legal

      And. of course, the all-time grandaddy of a Nancy Pelosi quote, "But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it."

      That was from less than 2 minutes of searching. You should really pay more attention.

      --
      Life, the Universe, and Everything... in my image.
    2. Re:I Hate My California Self by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) -- “Every month that we do not have an economic recovery package 500 million Americans lose their jobs.” – in a nation with 307 million people.

      Wow... makes me think of some of the things that Shrub said.

  96. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  97. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  98. Not opposed for escrow on children's devices by iamacat · · Score: 1

    I have a right and a responsibility to check what my children are doing or to help them if they forget their passwords. If the software notifies them when I take a look and what at, a master key is more respectful of their privacy than sharing the same password.

    So why doesn't she address her specific problem of "I have concern about a PlayStation that my grandchildren might use" rather than trying to create a backdoor for NSA under the guise of protecting children?

  99. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  100. Just explained to her why this won't work.. by kheldan · · Score: 1

    ..and why overall it's a Bad Idea anyway. Please, call or write the good Senator and also explain why having a 'backdoor' in any encryption system will render it essentially useless.

    --
    Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
  101. Will we make it illegal to change the extension? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "He must be OK, there are no .txt files on his flash drive".

    "What are all these .bin files"?

    What about evil Linux users with no extensions?

    This is the same idiot that thought rifle magazines could only be used once. I suggest a new unit of stupidity, the Feinstein. Each Feinstein is equal to a gigaDuh.

  102. Let's godwin this by rubycodez · · Score: 2

    For being a jew she sure is a fucking nazi.

  103. /. On the wrong side of the argument by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One of most liberal senators is asking for legislation to provide government access to encrypted information provided it can get a warrant.

    Let me repeat ... One of the most liberal senators. Not a Rebublician part of the military industrial complex. Let that sink in for a while.

    Slashdot Nation

    It's time to wake up, shave your neck beards and admit you are on the wrong side of the encryption debate.

  104. I don't think they understand how this works . . . by mmell · · Score: 1
    My ISP can only 'pierce' (read: violate) encryption that I get from my ISP. Hence that "common carrier" thing. There's no way my ISP can know what I'm doing with their connection if I use encapsulation/encryption methods for which they do not have an escrow - such as encapsulation/encryption methods provided by a veritable host of third parties. VPN, anyone?

    Y'know, VPN + TOR = about 90% of the fight won already. I suppose APK can even make a more than valid case for hostfiles in this connection. Hate to give that poor fellow the nod, as he still needs professional help; but (deity help me) I'm actually considering running his software. I may have to get over the author being crazed, or find another similar solution written by someone still in possession of all their marbles.

  105. Logging by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Simple solution, maybe just log the chats your grand-children participate in since they must be decrypted to display on the screen and be read!

  106. online banking... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    breakable encryption huh. yeah that'll work.

  107. anyone who takes this as a reason to vote R is an by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    idiot.

  108. You know, it occurs to me you're probably right. by waspleg · · Score: 1

    She's the longest serving senator there. I'm assuming she's taking her cues from Obama and Hillary essentially saying they think encryption is the devil, albeit veiled, only coming out with a harder stance they can't take as easily as she can.

    So, a tool for the party, which is itself one of the two fronts for the military industrial complex/corporate oligarchy. I guess senators can self-radicalize too then?

  109. Note to Dianne Feinstein by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Pierce" this encryption, you fascist bitch:

    6u#Ic Wcoy> %knfe YWp;T [K`9qe. lmY66~ N.Qe {-'; $8M' Cp:/E2.[ :;>` +@9"c+f)^e=; %y^7VWO[9H"s sLeqZ>Q 'vhO(U?~>` zb'0sC7X T$G*'2O IZp 6K(F3cs8! {Ll&=q;3N@ 0S.% 1e5.> Nl#8P + mf6. cTRl~2AU$ 3"7|\n#^ .:n{M v{Xr{$~`T) mDMY^^f6_0 ~1eJ jH]G+

  110. It's mathematics, not a hymem by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

    "Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) will seek legislation requiring the ability to "pierce" through encryption..."

    Someone should tell Sen. Feinstein that it's mathematics, not a hymen.

    --
    Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
  111. Been there... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    .. done that. Clipper Chip Redux. Same story, same mathematics, same outcome. Phil Zimmerman, we owe you.

  112. Encryption - Locked room by jraff2 · · Score: 1

    Encryption is like a locked room with two doors. The first door is well armed and protected. The second door is also well armed and protected, but the key is available to ALL commers. All one needs is a court order to get the second key, and presto it's open, and also now available to anybody, reason - Snowdon. --- All right one says we will do away with the second door, but require key escrow. Same problem - all one needs is a court order to get the second key, and presto it's open, and also now available to anybody, reason - Snowdon. --- So what is the solution, live with good encryption, but insist that everyone divulge the key "on presentation of a court order" with some heinous penalty for not releasing it. That way the encryption is not compromised, but still readable "with a court order" not like it is now ANYBODY can read it.

  113. Her grandkids by Kernel+Kurtz · · Score: 1

    and in fact anyone over the age of 10 or so is already trivially ignoring and bypassing their copyright laws. I expect their encryption laws will also fall quickly to the pre-teen set should they so desire.

    Fact is those grandkids are way fucking smarter than grandma will ever be.

  114. Even democrats are idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If the senator is so worried about her grand kids playing on the playstation, maybe she should turn it of.

    you can't pierce some encryption and not others. Would she like the encryption on her donor's bank records pierced as well.

  115. The world still has Capitalism to fix this by AHuxley · · Score: 1

    When the US gov/mil wants to "Pierce" into US hardware and software with junk and tame default encryption, the consumer can buy other strong brands and services.
    The global consumer has the right to route around the US mandated trapdoors, backdoors, gov/private sector partnerships and useless encryption, weak standards, extra gov keys and constant logging.
    The more backdoors and trapdoors a nation mandates, the less competitive their software and hardware exports become.
    Soon it will become more smart to write code in house and only each out to US standards when and where absolutely necessary with the least about of data exposure.

    People globally know any gov keys, codes, access does not stay with any one gov or mil department. Telco staff, private brands, contractors, mercenaries soon get a copy out to other nations or anyone who can pay.
    Dual citizens, the need for cash, political or cult or faith based ideals soon allow lot of other nations or random wealthy groups have the same once "secret" US gov backdoors, trapdoors or access.
    The keys to junk national encryption standards get shared very quickly and globally over the productive use of any product, network or service.

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  116. Technical ability by manu0601 · · Score: 1

    If they want the legal ability, that suggests they already have the technical ability but retain themselves to use it for legal reasons.

    In other words, all encryption is already broken. That, or either she is pushing a law without understanding what she says.

  117. I'm concerned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm concerned about letters and the things that could be encoded in them. I think about my grandkids in at school who could be learning all kinds of things that i don't want them to and there should be a law against it. Get off my lawn.

  118. Impressive by Dereck1701 · · Score: 1

    The levels of crazy that woman is capable of never cease to amaze me. She's like a female, Democrat version of Trump, only difference is the good people of California have seen fit keep electing her into various government offices since the 70s.

  119. sounds like she feels there are... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Too Many Secrets

  120. Dumb as Hillary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    She and Hillary are about as smart as a box of hammers. It would be nice if they would know a little history to see the best of intentions giving somebody unchecked power will eventually leave to unchecked corruption given enough time. Some grave mistakes you can't 'undo'.

  121. And then what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Say they get what they want and force back doors. Then all we need is one power hungry Muslim president to start..... oh wait a minute.

  122. Democrat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Isn't every senator part of the democratic system? Why say "Top democratic senator"? Was that a typo and was meant to say "Top Democrat senator"?

    She worried a terrorist will talk to her grandchild?

  123. You can't legislate out of stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You can't legislate out of stupid.

  124. Thanks for finding the case I was thinking of! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thank you! That was *exactly* the other case that I was referring to... when I preempted the claims that "this has already been tried in court" by pointing out that in both cases (Boucher and the one that I couldn't remember) the cleartext was already known to be incriminating.

    Thanks for finding the other example that I couldn't remember. That is indeed the case that I was thinking of. As I recalled, and as the decision in question discusses the defendant had already provided information as to the contents of the drive in a prison phone call.

  125. Re: Misleading article? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The article doesn't mention any actual bill, but Feinstein just introduced S. 2372: A bill to require reporting of terrorist. There is no text for the bill yet, but according to Feinstein's office, which I called after reading this article, is meant to just require companies to report to police if they come across terrorist or explosives information.

    I am no fan of Feinstein, but I haven't seen anything questionable or about encryption backdoors in the bill. It seems that reporters are just making stiff up these days.

  126. The rants matter little, the votes matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd bet more than a wooden nickle that most of the Slashdot readers in California voted for her, and would vote for her again no matter what. People can rant all day long about how awful she is, but they will vote for her anyway, because they agree with her politics which is what leads her to the actions they pretend to deplore. What's really happening here is that people who prefer left-wing secular totalitarians will always vote for them and then pretend to complain that they don't like the natural and obvious effects, basically trying to convince their saner peers not to blame them

    Sorry, but if you ever voted for this evils woman or you ever vote for her in the future, you are to blame; it's a "package deal". Just as people who voted for Bush for various reasons are also on the hook for supporting him on the unpopular stuff, people who vote Obama, or Feinstein or her crazier nastier friend Boxer are on the hook for this junk - that's Democracy. Don't like it? Force your party to stop supporting these dirtbags, OR push for smaller government like our founders intended because a very small government will be involved in a very small number of things and the politicians will therefore be only involved in those limited things and their views on other matters simply will not matter.

    1. Re: The rants matter little, the votes matter by RR · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The Republican Party in California is broken. Feinstein's reelection was so assured that they didn't bother to nominate a real candidate to run against her. And Boxer's most recent opponent was that horrible person, Carly Fiorina. The real problem is binary partisanship, a natural outcome of the winner-takes-all voting system. When both parties agree on all the structural issues, the American voters have no real choice.

      --
      Have a nice time.
  127. That's not the HALF of it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you play that PlayStation BACKWARDS, the voice of the DEVIL can be heard!!!!!!!

    Tell your children to bring their game machines to the rally friday night where we will BURN them and SMASH them to keep the EVIL out of of our lives!

    Get thee behind me, oh Sony, thou deciever!

    Oh, wait...... she's a Democrat. It's all good. Move-along. Nothing to see here. If she had been a Republican we could all scream about what an ignorant retrograde technophobic fool she obviously is........ drats!

  128. Why does California keep voting for her? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do Californians hate freedom? Can we cede California to Russia. Putin and Feinstein would agree on sooooo much.

  129. Well, she IS an improvement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The actual top-Democrat in the Senate a few years ago, elected by vote of all their fellow Democrat senators including her Barbara Boxer (the other California senator) and Joe Biden (now president) and Barack Obama (now president) was actual KKK leader Robert Byrd.

    Give them another century and the Democrats might finally stop being completely fixated on skin color, and might even stop trying to create a massive totalitarian government that is involved in every aspect of life. One can dream....

  130. Sen. Dianne Feinstein Toilet Cam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm more in line with installing toilet cams in all toilets Senators might use--for law enforcement purposes, requiring a warrant, of course. But knowing anything, we'd just end up getting a lot of exhibitionist politicians--certainly lots of "piercing" going on. *shrug*

    PS - Honestly, at least actually installing toilet cams would be actually doable.

  131. Somebody really needs to go to congress by silentcoder · · Score: 1

    Once a month, every month forever, to go and remind them that trying to get rid of or weaken encryption through legislation is
    1) Impossible to enforce
    2) Guaranteed to give more power to criminals than to law enforcement (as it always has) - because any backdoor can be entered by bad guys as well as good guys and bad guys don't usually bother with getting a warrant first
    3) An absolutely unconscionably severe assault on freedom of speech
    4) Stifling to research that is critical to the national security of the united states.
    5) Pretty much mathematically impossible to achieve

    Hopefully each congressman may notice *one* of these reasons, all of them true.

    I mean, I have no hope it would actually work... but at least when it blows up in their faces (again) we would be able to say "I told you so".

    --
    Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
  132. Post Paris crapstorm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Right after Paris, agents of Security Theater(tm) came out with all kinds of noise about how the terrorists used encryption to send blah blah. And the rolled out a PS(x) and said "there's your trouble"(tm). And then reality came around and they found out that no, all the terrorists was unencrypted sms to communicate. The problem was that a hundred bajillion radio and tv stations covered the "It the playstation fault! Damn hackers!" and only very few gave the correction. And now we have the second step of Security Theater(tm), and at least one badly informed (or naive) elected public official nibbling the bait. And Paris burns, and nothing of value will have occurred, but people will have to look over their shoulders if they want secure communications over the internet, unless they use steganography (which is extremely hard to prevent, looks innocent, and can't be stopped).

  133. It boggles the mind by LordWabbit2 · · Score: 1

    The lack of evidence showing that encrypted communications played a role in either the Paris attacks, which killed 129 people, or the San Bernardino shooting, which killed 14 people, has not deterred law enforcement, who believe the technology is making their job more difficult and Americans less safe.

    So they didn't encrypt anything, and all the spying being done on EVERYONE didn't help or provide any clues that the attacks were going to happen. So lets pass a law on encryption, because then we would have known? How the fuck does anyone even think that's a logical fucking argument.

    --
    There are three kinds of falsehood: the first is a 'fib,' the second is a downright lie, and the third is statistics.
  134. Seek Legislation To "Pierce" Through Gravity... by t0mek · · Score: 1

    ...while you're at it so the American law enforcement could effortlessly hover over suspect with the court order.

  135. Bad (grand)parent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "I have concern about a PlayStation that my grandchildren might use," she said, "and a predator getting on the other end, and talking to them, and it's all encrypted. I think there really is reason to have the ability, with a court order, to be able to get into that."

    Or you could, you know, pay your kids / grandkids a bit of attention, make sure you know what they're up to when they play on their console. Like good parents do....

  136. dumbass politician by sociocapitalist · · Score: 1

    You'd think she'd learn from her own recent history how such measures can be abused.
    http://www.nationaljournal.com...

    --
    blindly antisocialist = antisocial
  137. The law does not define reality by gweihir · · Score: 1

    It can attempt to modify behavior of people but that is it. Reality stands above the law and people that seem to think different (like Feinstein) are delusional.

    The reality of the matter is that you can have secure crypto or backdoored crypto. The latter is insecure and can be attacked by any number of attackers. There is _no_ way around that. (For details, look up the discussion the crypto experts have had on this in the last few years.)

    Backdoored crypto is hence a gross risk and far, far worse than not being able to read every message desired.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  138. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  139. Demoncrap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Feinstein is NOT a Democratic senator. She IS a Democrat senator...or as I like to spell the word, Demoncrap.

  140. Home of the brave and the free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    is that you or do you represent the coward and the traitor like her?

  141. She knows.... by Stubbyfingers · · Score: 1

    How to pronounce the big words, but doesn't know what they mean.

  142. Not so much by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Remember: Dick Cheney became a very rich fellow at Halliburton doing TONS of business with Arab Muslims and in government has sent vast numbers of Americans to fight some Muslims on behalf of other Muslims. Like most of the political elites in BOTH parties, Cheney has lots of personal and financial ties to very wealth Muslims and leaders of Muslim nations.

    Too bad he spends more time worrying about Muslims than middle- and lower-class Americans, of all other (and of no) faiths.

  143. You can ban guns and you can ban encryption by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But you can't stop humans from DIY:

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=aQsp7vz4Cyc

    And when it comes down to it, you could build a one time use shotgun made out of PVC that instantly destroys itself for even less money.

    How can you stop the development of one time use, self destructing encryption?

  144. Saw the headline, and I just knew it would be Feinstein. One of the worst of the "regulation for regulation's sake"/"think of the children!!!" bunch.

    --
    Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
  145. Anyone surprised? by anti-disney · · Score: 1

    Isn't she a member of the house intelligence committee and a strong supporter of the Patriot Act? We need to protect the children? Right! If you're concerned who your children are talking to install a key logger, restrict their access, keep computers and gaming consoles they use in the front room, and watch their activity. I'm sure this is an attempt to add back door to encryption and it will be expanded to not just protect children just like all other federal regulations. With a warrant, law enforcement could probably install spyware on the suspects computer to capture information before it is encrypted or determine the password they are using to encrypt their communications. Back doors only weaken encryption and it is bad enough that companies don't encrypt information and it ends up stolen by hackers or foreign governments. With a back door, these same hackers will be able to steal information even if it is encrypted. In addition, law enforcement will abuse such a back door key. To illustrate how a back door breaks encryption, look at those "TSA approved" locks that are easy to unlock and are useless since not only can the TSA open them, others have found out how to open them too. In my case I was able to use another key to open a "TSA approved" lock by just jiggling the key until it opened the lock. I didn't realize I was using the wrong key and wondered why I initially had troubles opening locks. People have created master keys with 3-D printers to open any TSA approved lock. Will this happen to all encryption? Most likely it will.

    1. Re:Anyone surprised? by anti-disney · · Score: 1

      Let me add that criminals (including terrorist groups) will simply develop their own encryption to avoid the back door keys.

  146. I will turn off my encryption when... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I will turn off my encryption as soon as she auto-forwardeds every e-mail she and her slimeball husband gets on all their e-mails so we can expose them for the whores to the highest bidder they are; along with the shady deals her husband has been involved with. If they want the 50+ ads a day I get along with an occasional love e-mail from my Bride, they are more than welcome. But then again we have a candidate for POTUS who told Congess that she never cleaned her server with a rag so what am I thinking...

  147. That was hillarious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "... from a European perspective, the Democrats and Conservatives are almost identical."

    Thanks for the humor, I needed a good laugh.

    That would be the Europe where all politics is so far left that their "far left" is international socialism ( the Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics) and their "far right" is national socialism (the National SOCIALIST German Workers Party) and all the "normal" and "moderate" people balance on a political knife-edge between those two with nearly identical pallid "social democrat" parties. Any political upset in modern Europe brings the shrill warnings of a tip to the left into violent international Marxism or to the right into violent national Marxism. Europeans seem oblivious to the political toxic soup they have stewed in for centuries while sneering at the American hicks. While presuming themselves superior, Europeans went from Kings and Queens and Emperors to Fascists and NAZIs and Communists, sparking countless wars on the continent, two of which became world wars that required the intervention of the supposedly stupid Americans - without ever actually trying FREEDOM.

    No thanks.

    I'll keep my US Constitution, including the 2nd Amendment, and resist the continual drumbeat to make America more like Europe - there IS no other country to come in and free us all if the US becomes like Europe and then joins in running another "enlightened" elitist political "experiment".

  148. uh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's NEVER been a politician of ANY party or ideology in California who was worse than Feinstein. Her supporters always support her for various evil reasons and then try to cover for it by claiming "the other candidates were all worse." Utter rubbish. She's an extremely evil and corrupt politician who refused to even hold press interviews or debates in her last faux election (and the Democrat-run press in California totally covered for her on this when they would have gone completely insane had any other party's candidate pulled that crap). She pretends to be a "defense hawk" on the Senate Armed Services Committee when in reality her husband makes millions from his defense business activities on the defense contracts she oversees. She long campaigned to take away the 2nd Amendment gun rights of all Americans while she herself was not only fully protected by armed guards but also had a concealed carry permit and a gun ON HER PERSON. She is a political opportunist of the first order who built her entire political career on solid support from the SF gay community because she was there when Harvey Milk was murdered, sort of like Jesse Jackson built his on being nearby when MLK was shot when there were plenty of other genuine MLK people around who should have been there to take up that mantle.

    California is a one-party-state and it's going straight to hell, with most large manufacturing and many middle class people fleeing the state. The state is giving health insurance and driving licenses to illegal aliens who WILL be voting because the Democrats instituted "motor voter" and prohibit fraud checks on elections, and meanwhile the state keeps increasing regulations on and inspections of any businesses that MAKE stuff, while raising rates for power and water and actively fighting to reduce energy production and water supplies. Oh, and we have "carbon trading" so the politicians can enrich themselves with Enron's plan for selling shares of nothing on imaginary markets.

    The formerly "golden state" is transmogrifying into the "toxic lead state" in a political act of reverse alchemy.

  149. and on this the NRA is right... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When you ban guns, only criminals will be armed.

    DiFi is one of those criminals who will own guns, while she pushes for law-abiding citizens to be stripped of their Constitutional rights.

    There's a connection here:

    She's also the one pushing to spy on all Americans and Decrypt all their stuff, while demanding HER e-mails and such remain private and not be scanned by federal agencies.

    Leftist totalitarians all over the planet are always the same. Some people just refuse to see it and even actively support them in exchange for the "right" to kill their kids, do drugs, be given somebody else's stuff, or have sex with somebody who has the same personal plumbing. It's all a matter of priorities (sigh).

  150. Nope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The 1986 amnesty ended the GOP in CA. It was a deal that was supposed to show mercy to about 4 million illegals in exchange for border security, but the Democrats broke the deal and refused to allow the border to be secured once they realized how much benefit they could get from targeted lawlessness.

    Millions of Hispanic and Asian illegal immigrants suddenly got the right to vote and their kids eventually grew to voting age. All those formerly illegal immigrants and their kids vote lock-step Democrat no matter what. The only Republican to get elected to state-wide office since that double tidal wave of new Democrat voters was the Governator who was at the left fringe of the GOP, married into the Kennedy family, and mostly seen as a movie star action hero rather than a Republican.

    THAT is why the Democrats are importing millions of illegals into the entire nation now as fast as they can - they're trying to repeat this for the entire nation replacing the formerly white-anglo-saxon-protestant majority with a bunch of ethnic and religious special interest groups that will play into the group identity politics of the Democrat party and thus make the entire nation into a one party rule nation. Mussolini, here we come.

  151. Note on style by sabbede · · Score: 1

    She told the Senate Judiciary committee on Wednesday that she would seek a bill that would give police armed with a warrant based on probable cause the ability to read encrypted data.

    Yuk. Should be "She told the Senate Judiciary committee on Wednesday that she would seek a bill that would give police, armed with a warrant based on probable cause, the ability to read encrypted data." Note the commas.

  152. Brilliant! by udoschuermann · · Score: 1

    So the police will have to seek a warrant, while everyone else just skips that requirement and goes straight to the "encrypted" data? I just want to see their bank account transactions secured with the likes of rot13, it would make my day, it really would. Can I have that for my holiday present, please?

    --
    --Udo.