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."

17 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.
  3. 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 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.

    3. 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.

    4. 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.

  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?

  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...

    1. 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?
  7. 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?

  8. Re:Will somebody think of the children! by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Because government people live in fantasy world?

  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."

  10. 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.
  11. 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
  12. 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.