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."

20 of 556 comments (clear)

  1. 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 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.

  2. 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 U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Because government people live in fantasy world?

    2. 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.

  3. 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...

  4. 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 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. 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.
  6. Speaks with forked tongue by charles05663 · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

  7. 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.

  8. 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.

  9. 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 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

  10. 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.

  11. 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
  12. 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.

  13. 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.

  14. 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.