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."

100 of 556 comments (clear)

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

    THINK OF THE CHILDREN!

    --
    I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J
  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 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
    2. 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.

    3. 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!
    4. 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...

    5. 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
    6. 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.

    7. Re: Okay... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      One time pad is proved unbreakable

    8. 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
    9. Re: Okay... by fustakrakich · · Score: 2

      Even with the "rubber hose"?

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    10. 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...

    11. 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
    12. 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.

  3. 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 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.
    5. 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.

    6. 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.

    7. 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.
    8. 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!

    9. 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.
  4. 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...

  5. 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
  6. 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 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.

    3. 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.

    4. 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.

    5. 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.

  7. 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 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.

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

      Seniority can be a bitch.

    4. 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.

    5. 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
    6. 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.
  8. 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.

  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. But this is totally not a backdoor! by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 2

    *facepalm*

    </thread>

    --
    Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  12. 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

  13. She is merely following precendent by l2718 · · Score: 4, Informative
  14. 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.

  15. 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.
  16. 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.

  17. 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

  18. 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 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).

    2. 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.

    3. 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, ...

    4. 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."

    5. 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.

    6. 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. 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.

  20. 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.
  21. 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.

  22. 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 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!”
  23. 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.
  24. 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

  25. 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.
  26. 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.

  27. 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 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.
  28. 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.

  29. 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.
  30. 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
  31. 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
  32. 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.
  33. 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.

  34. 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.

  35. 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.
  36. 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.

  37. 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.

  38. 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.

  39. "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."
  40. 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.

  41. 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

  42. 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.
  43. 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
  44. 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.
  45. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  46. Let's godwin this by rubycodez · · Score: 2

    For being a jew she sure is a fucking nazi.

  47. 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.
  48. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  49. 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.