Slashdot Mirror
French Bill Carries 5-Year Jail Sentence For Company Refusals To Decrypt Data For Police (dailydot.com)
Patrick O'Neill writes: Employees of companies in France that refuse to decrypt data for police can go to prison for five years under new legislation from conservative legislators, Agence France-Presse reports. The punishment for refusing to hand over access to encrypted data is a five year jail sentence and $380,000 fine. Telecom companies would face their own penalties, including up to two years in jail. M. Pierre Lellouche, a French Republican, singled out American encryption in particular. "They deliberately use the argument of public freedoms to make money knowing full well that the encryption used to drug traffickers, to serious [criminals] and especially to terrorists. It is unacceptable that the state loses any control over encryption and, in fact, be the subject of manipulation by U.S. multinationals."
Fuck those fools
Who exactly goes to jail? The CEO? The CTO? The employees who supposedly know how to decrypt the data? How do you establish who has that ability? Suppose no one has that ability. Suppose the devices are designed so only the end user can decrypt the data. Do you jail the engineers who designed such devices? Do you jail the retailers who sold such devices? How does this work? How does the government prove a specific employee at a company has the ability to decrypt the data, or in the alternative, how do they prove which individual was responsible for creating a situation where the data can't be decrypted?
If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
It is unacceptable that the state loses any control over encryption
if you have such a hard-on for total control, you should NOT be part of any government.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
They deliberately use the argument of public freedoms to make money knowing full well that the encryption used to drug traffickers, to serious [criminals] and especially to terrorists.
The same argument applies to cars, guns, knives, shoes... all used by drug traffickers, criminals, and terrorists. Knife companies should be required to install a failsafe so that the blades can be remotely deactivated at the government's request.
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
The real basis for this proposed law has nothing to do with encryption or drug trafficking or child molesting. It has everything to do with anti-americanism. He even says as much - it's about keeping US companies from having any influence in Europe.
Public freedoms are no longer permitted.
I think they're only saying that the public has no right to achieve privacy when their owners, errr, the government is concerned.
And really, if you had a herd of cattle holding secret meetings you'd want to know what's up too. They're probably not talking about how great your hay is.
And besides, the public agrees
Who else would provide the hay?
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
The board of directors should be liable to prison time for the crimes of the corporation, unless they can prove due diligence to avoid it.
If you accurately represented his opinion, it would indeed be shocking.
Since you didn't, it is called a "straw man."
There is nothing at all fringe about the idea that European law is connected to American law; indeed, English Common Law was adopted from the start. The earliest legal document that gets cited in US law is the Magna Carta; look it up if you think that was an American document. ;) The reality is that the Constitution bans "cruel and unusual" punishment, which is and always was based on the current culture. It is perfectly reasonable to look to what is considered "cruel" and "unusual" by our formal allies, especially those ones who share certain parts of common law with us. If you read the Declaration of Independence, you know that the Framers of the Constitution did indeed care about European recognition of the United States as being a valid legal entity.
You extract his position on a specific and detailed debate, and convert it to a poorly generalized argument that is easily attacked. That is one floppy straw man.
Maybe someday you'll care about the things you choose to talk about enough to actually read his book for yourself.