Slashdot Mirror
Senate Bill Draft Would Prohibit Unbreakable Encryption (ap.org)
buck-yar quotes a report from the Associated Press: "A draft version of a Senate bill would effectively prohibit unbreakable encryption and require companies to help the government access data on a computer or mobile device with a warrant."
The two Senators finalizing the bill announced "No individual or company is above the law," saying their goal is to ensure compliance with court orders to help law enforcement or to provide decrypted information. The ACLU's legislative counsel argued the drafted legislation represents a "clear threat to everyone's privacy and security," and the bill is opposed by another member of the Senate committee, Ron Wyden, who says it would require "American companies to build a backdoor... They would be required by federal law per this statute to decide how to weaken their products to make Americans less safe."
The two Senators finalizing the bill announced "No individual or company is above the law," saying their goal is to ensure compliance with court orders to help law enforcement or to provide decrypted information. The ACLU's legislative counsel argued the drafted legislation represents a "clear threat to everyone's privacy and security," and the bill is opposed by another member of the Senate committee, Ron Wyden, who says it would require "American companies to build a backdoor... They would be required by federal law per this statute to decide how to weaken their products to make Americans less safe."
This is a good time to drop them a letter AND an email AND a phone call AND a fax while at it. Go on, do what's expected of you but too few of you actually do.
If this bill became law, it would be great for "black market" open-source encryption software.
Was this bill introduced with the intention of passing it, or was it done for election time?
Many bills get introduced that have zero chance of passing, rather they do it so the Congresscritters can go back to their home state and say "I'm fighting for you, to stop those evil terrorists from threatening your family, vote for me!"
Only government is.
GCv5c3FA9xfa7&aigJ
quantum cryptography industry.
Because black holes slurp information, but won't disgorge it.
Didn't the Supreme Court discover a general right to privacy in the penumbra from the emanations of the Constitution? Whatever happened to that?
We seem to have a bunch of politicians that are convinced the citizenry are fucking stupid.
Don't live up their expectations.
Wikipedia's article on one-time pad will soon say "Unfortunately, this content is not available in the USA. Sorry about that".
She's just a paranoid old woman who's so scared about "the terrorists" that she's willing to give up ... what's the line ? Oh yeah, "essential liberty" ... sounds familiar somehow.
I happen to work on De Anza Blvd, and I was looking out the window when the proverbial was hitting the fan with Apple and the FBI, there was suddenly a cavalcade of blacked-out sedans overriding the lights sequence, with police blowing their horn as someone (my assumption here is that it was the senator, no-one else really gets that level of police co-operation) halted the normal traffic lights sequence so this entire entourage could turn into Infinite Loop.
So, Diane was going to yell at Tim. I have some reasonable hope that Tim told her to stick it where the sun don't shine, but I think he's more polite (not to mention politically astute) than I, so I'm sure he came up with a gentlemanly way to say it.
The good news is that she won't be re-elected because she's not going to run any more. She's too old (thank $deity) so we have a chance of getting someone in who isn't a complete fucking moron when it comes to national security. There's no way this state will elect a republican, so we're stuck with her until then. She gets a lot of votes, and I really hope that's just people voting along party lines because if people actually *want* her policies, well... shit, time to leave.
Physicists get Hadrons!
No encryption is unbreakable, it just takes a rather long time with current knowledge and technology.
I think this is a sibling to the halting problem". I think that there have been any number of "almost" unbreakable encryption, but as long as you want your encryption to be un-encryptable there's a problem here.
Perhaps we should just ban encryption that can be unencrypted.
I run my data center in Ireland.
They don't get the inherent flaw with "breakable" encryption: if the government can break it then so can third-parties. Which may be other governments. Like China looking for industrial secrets. Hell, even right now you know that encrypted channels of every kind are being recorded for the inevitable day quantum computing becomes a reality and they can then be decrypted after the fact.
Shh.
Everything else is trivially breakable with a finite number of operations.
Ban unbreakable encryption. Politicians proving once again they are dangerously uneducated. About time you stopped electing people with socially useless law and politics degrees.
Take Nobody's Word For It.
This is good. Not the bill, but this is the correct place for this debate, in the legislature, not the courts. Now we just need to make sure it loses, and for the right reasons.
All encryption can be broken with enough time and compute power.
The Congressmen should speak to PM Cameron of the UK about the need for privacy and encryption. He seems to have gotten a change of heart following the Panama Papers leak. Anyhoo, all encryption is breakable. It may just take a while...
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
One point I never see made is that, yeah, we may trust this government with our lives/security/privacy, but the issue I think the founding fathers saw was that if you "let such cats out of the bag", the horribly evil government that's in place 25 years from now will have total, unretractable control - "we the people" would, then, have no recourse.
Follow along with me:
Cryptograghy is subject to ITAR (International Traffic in Arms Regulations)
This means the Federal Government treats Cryptography as an Armament
What does the second amendment say: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"
Hey NRA time to step up and defend the Second Amendment against the heinous assault. Slippery slope and all. You don't want these guys coming after your guns do you.
so the Congresscritters can go back to their home state and say
no, this is a trial balloon, they'll keep trying over and over again until they pass it at 4:59 pm before a holiday
Maybe we can use this gaffe to kickstart European replacements for American tech companies. Oh who am I kidding, we'll fall in line.
It's pretty rich when someone who has seen the stuff that the Senate Intelligence Committee gets glimpses of would actually claim that nobody is above the law.
Of course, this is Feinstein, wicked witch of the west, so of course she would.
I'm given to understand that he couldn't be broken. Plainly a threat. Lock him up.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
The NSA and FBI brought this on themselves. Before all the spying on everyone, parallel construction, and warrant less use of stingray plus secret courts, nobody was all that much interested in consumer products with unbreakable encryption.
If they want to blame someone for this, they need to look in a mirror and understand that their operations are just plain creepy and incompatible with a free country. They are starting to smell like the Stasi and a significant portion of the citizens of this country don't care to give them any more of a foothold.
Republicans, are you looking for a senator who shares your values? A richer-than-fuck mucky-muck who will fit right in with the corrupt Wall Street crowd? Maybe you need a stooge who will rubber-stamp every authoritarian defense industry and law enforcement wet dream?
Pick yourself up a Senator Feinstein today! We only have one left, and we sure as fuck don’t want her in California. I know, she’s a “democrat” but that’s really in name only. She shares your values more than Grassley or Graham, and her whole career is a massive conflict of interest. You’ll just love her.
Ohall sales are final. No refunds, no returns.
With the exception of one time pads(which are mostly too clunky for practical purposes: it's handy that there is a mathematically rigorous way to 'get a rain check' and use the fact that you were able to transmit n bits across a secure channel at some point in the past to secure up to n bits of communication over one or more occasions in the future; but actually having a known-secure channel even once is frequently a luxury you simply never get); they don't make encryption in 'unbreakable', just in 'far too tedious to be usefully breakable'. Did our glorious senators remember to specify that starting a brute force attack when ordered to provide customer data; and promising to deliver the data just as quickly as it becomes ready, does't count as compliance?
How would our political process function if one party knew what the other party would do next?
https://www.youtube.com/c/BrendaEM
Pass the law that makes all encryption on personnel communication devices punishable by death, and fulfill the promise.
No More Secrets
Who knew that this is what they meant with the most transparent administration ever ;-) Before people get spun up and rant that Romney would have been worse (as if two wrongs make a right) I'm not suggesting that the Republicans would be better. I am suggesting that both the D & R parties do not have the average citizen and especially not the middle class in mind and privacy is just one of the ways that they screw us over.
then any correspondence from any branch of the government should be out in the open for anyone to read
Government's attack on cryptography is not meant to protect citizens. The ability to intercept all communication is a thinly disguised, power grab. If government wants to protect citizens, it should start by attacking crypto-ransomware.
Crypto-ransomware is a real and growing threat to every person and organization on the internet. It is already being used to attack hospitals, businesses and individuals. There are already many more attacks via ransomware than conventional terrorist techniques.
Crypto-ransomware is quickly becoming the weapon of a new breed of terrorist. Why isn't this threat foremost in the public discussion?
Law enforcement needs to target real threats, and stop attacking public cryptography scapegoats.
Of course, this wouldn't give them the same power rush as having access to your emails.
Fuck that!
If you own hardware or software that is securely encrypted, then you will be committing an offence. That's how they get round that problem. Whether that's sustainable in court is up to debate - doesn't it constitute free speech? - but it will keep a few people cowed.
Wow - no wonder the USA is messed up. In the UK our ministers get a chauffeured car - and that's it. Disrupting the traffic - especially because it's so bad anyway - is the way to lose elections over here. I remember seeing Obama go past in a 50 car cavalcade. WHY?
Seems like this has potential as a campaign issue.
I am really afraid that Feinstein & Burr's bill will become law. If it does the FBI will be able to read all my plans as I won't be allowed to encrypt them. That would be a shame since I have a nice business going here ... maybe I could move to Canada. Perhaps I could give them some campaign contributions to make this go away. This is really bad news, a lot of my friends would also need to stop doing dirty deeds, think of the unemployment that this would cause!
The Supreme Court needs to reiterate the right to speak encrypted in the First Amendment, and that "regulating business activity is not regulating speech" is itself unconstitutional sophistry.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
The full text of the draft bill, and some commentary, is at The Hill: "Senate encryption bill draft mandates 'technical assistance'".
Dear Senate, all of you are drooling morons. uncrackable encryption has existed for decades, and will continue to exist after your stupid law. All the law does is makes honest people criminals.
It's to the point that it's not worth it to be an honest citizen because the criminals have more freedom.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Since when does our servant government get to pass laws without OUR approval? (rhetorical but self-illuminating)
The government should be OUR advocate since it is delegated certain authority by WE, THE PEOPLE.
>>Not having auto-wipe is not the same as having a backdoor.
Yes, it is. A security model is the totality of all measures. Removing one piece destroys the whole. So yes, a backdoor.
You can claim to dislike Feinstein, but the majority of the people in California like her and her bullshit ideas so much that they have elected her five times now.
And, most recently, "in the 2012 election, she claimed the record for the most popular votes in any U.S. Senate election in history".
That will work just about as well as laws that make suicide illegal. Or guns.
Unenforceable; impractical; in the final analysis, stupid.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Oh, "free speech" is no obstacle. We've already been informed -- by legal action -- that "free speech zones" are perfectly acceptable limitations on speech. As is content. As is FCC regulation. And so on. In this case, "free speech zones" will be within government purview, that's all. You don't such a law would apply to the US government, do you???
Just as with "no right to shout fire in a crowded building", you aren't allowed to exercise the right of free speech that way, but a crowded school conducting a fire drill? No problem. They can shout fire in a crowded building without any legal worries at all. Because, you know, people are too stupid to behave properly in any situation unless they are led by the nose by an authority figure.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
I would describe the tape on FBI director Comey's laptop webcam as unbreakable encryption.
He should be arrested with the key thrown away!
These a_holes we elected want THEIR privacy because THEIR motives are unassailable.
What about OUR privacy? That Feinstein nut has secret service with guns protecting her, yet she would do away with our 2nd amendment as well.
STOP passing laws you are unable to live under yourselves, Government.
It is nice the President thinks we're fetishizing our phones.
But why is government so interested in reading every American's data?
Without a warrant. I would call that fetish beyond creepy.
The answer is to hack their devices and expose all their unsavory dealings.
Just like the Panama papers.Politicians voluntarily resigning left and right is the antidote to these power-hungry fools.
Go through their back doors hackers till they beg for mercy (double-entendre intended)!!!
The battle was lost long, long ago. But that does not reduce the satisfaction one gets from complaining about it.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Let's take this law to its logical conclusion. No one in power cares about individuals download pgp and encrypting their email. Everyone cares when money gets involved.
All "trusted" internet commerce where you plug in your credit card number is dependent upon encryption strong enough to prevent credit card and identity theft. If this law were to pass no internet commerce company would be able to use encryption strong enough to prevent people from stealing credit card numbers by skimming traffic. It may take a little bit (hours or days) but someone skimming Amazon or bank traffic will start being to pull out credit card and account numbers and the trust of internet banking will be destroyed for years.
This is what will prevent strong encryption from going away- the encryption has to be available to all users for it to be useful. People, credit card companies and insurance companies will not tolerate money being stolen whole sale that we have not seen yet. Yes I am aware that people get their card numbers stolen everyday. Removing encryption would guarantee that your card is stolen the first time you use your card on the internet.
Architectural plans are like computer source code with a couple of differences: You only compile once.
American companies can not provide unbreakable encryption? Another country will provide those products and people will want them. Our tech firms get hurt. Brilliant!
...Until all countries follow our laws and prohibit the same thing(s).
Then the only people who have an immense, evil amount of power are governments... beyond what we (in the US) allow today.
Not to get into the politics of it all, but doesn't limiting the size and scope of our government here in the US make the most sense in the long-run? Handing over power to our government might seem great when the right people are in office, but when the people change (and the power is still there), everyone is screwed. History repeating itself over and over.
So the law must allow encryption then we don't have a problem.
You don't even need a phone book. A pad - one time or otherwise - requires that both ends have the key. IOW, agreement ahead of time on encoding.
If you're going to do that, you can just agree to nonsensical, 100% non-mapping encodings such as this:
message: "The swan is in the jacuzzi"
meaning: "set the timer for 10 minutes and run like hell"
message: "seven burgers at midnight"
meaning: "the VP is the target"
message: "Transgender cotton candy"
meaning: "we'll meet at the fenceline"
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
So no more online banking? No paypal? No stripe? (not that they're encryption is unbreakable, just extremely impractical outside a cosmic timescale).
I suppose that's one way to force another .com bust.
I could live with it, I grew up with in-person only transactions, we got by just fine. I don't expect the transition back to bank tellers will be easy though.
I suppose I could go to Amazon.com (or wherever), place my order, they could generate a printable invoice, then I could go to the bank and pay it? Once the payment clears, they will ship my order?
Is that the idea here?
We just need to ban lawmakers. We have enough laws now anyway.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
There, fixed that for ya.
The Senate's Draft Bill is "Ludicrous, Dangerous, Technically Illiterate": http://www.wired.com/2016/04/s... This bill will certainly stop terrorists in their tracks. After all, terrorists know nothing about computers. And no one outside U.S. jurisdiction knows nothing about computer programming. And no such person or company can produce a program that encrypts data that is "communicated" or "stored." And computer programs cannot be transferred across U.S. borders without approval by the U.S. authorities. And know one knows how to install a computer program without outside assistance by the company or person who produced it. And U.S. Senators and their staffs are not idiots. And/or fascists. And/or certainly not both.
Isn't the Internet already filled with loads of unbreakable encryption options?
Even if they make any of the freely available encryption options available today, illegal -- doesn't that mean that we end up with a situation where criminals continue to use encryption?
Isn't this a case of trying to close the barn doors after the horses are already gone?
Unbreakable encryption -- outside of direct coercion of the sender or receiver -- is trivial. Here's an encrypted message from me:
"The cockatrice is in the jacuzzi"
Let me know when you can decrypt it without directly coercing me. You're allowed to use any intellectual or computing resources available to anyone on the planet. Or all of them. Until you can, there's no way, literally no way to make unbreakable encryption inaccessible to anyone with a vocabulary larger than a parrot's (on second thought, that might be enough anyway.) Making such a thing illegal to do, or use, is completely impractical.
You can punish someone for using it, if you can catch them at it.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Intentional backdoors are a horrible idea. I wonder how these imbecile senators would like to have a hidden unlockable door to their home? You know who you give a copy of your keys to, but you could never be sure who knows where the hidden unlocked entrance is.
Everyone here knows what's being proposed is technically infeasible. We would effectively end up with no encryption at all. So what would the corporate response be? What would Apple, Google, Cisco, et al, do if this bill were to pass? They can't possibly comply, not to mention their sales would plummet. Their only option, if they want to survive, is to extend their middle finger, pull out their millions in political funding and tax dollars (whatever relatively paltry taxes they actually pay) and setup shop across the pond. Americans lose, completely, every way you look at it.
It would therefore seem there is no chance in hell this bill could ever get passed.
"Molest me not with this pocket calculator stuff."
- Deep Thought
Okay, so they want to ban unbreakable encryption.
Understandably, the tech industry is up in arms.
What I want to know is how come the banking industry isn't up in arms over this too -- because you know, all modern banking transactions are totally dependent on secure encrypted communications. What happens when hackers find the legally-enforced back-door in a currency trading system's encryption?
And what about the retail industry? Because all e-commerce, all credit card transactions, they all rely on secure encryption too.
I get it; the law isn't aimed at disrupting the every financial transaction on the planet; it's aimed at the terrorists. But the banks should be smart enough to realize that it's the exact same encryption technology being used for their secure transactions as it is for people who want to communicate secretly, and that if there's a legally enforced back-door in it, it's going to make the banking networks into target number one for every black hat hacker on the planet. And it won't even be difficult -- I mean seriously, if the reward is being able to break into the banking networks and steal billions, it's not going to be hard to spare enough of that jackpot to bribe some corrupt FBI officers to help you get the access keys.
Don't remember seeing that one before, but it is just possible that my sub-conscious remembered. Do I get to claim originality on the NRA part?
Think about it, dear politicians, what this would mean for your economy.
Let's say I have a company. I have data that is important to me because it contains trade secrets. I'm in research and development, i.e. THE field you want to attract. No/little use of resources, employs lots of people from top eggheads to braindead menial workers and the output is patents that can be multiplied at will with zero cost and sold (not only domestic but also abroad) for insane amounts of money.
In case you're too stupid to understand that, dear politican: YOU DO WANT THAT BUSINESS in your town, state and country. You do want that. It's the perfect cash cow, the industry that turns literally NOTHING into gold.
I will steer clear of you if you disallow me to use unbreakable encryption and perfect safety from spying, though. For obvious reasons: There is none, never has been, never will be, a government-only backdoor. Or rather, there will not be an anything-only backdoor. Any backdoor you can use will eventually be available to my competitor.
Oh, it's safe because only you have the key? Think again. That key is in the hands of some person working for you. And the entities interested in my research are not only corporations but also whole countries with funds that make that guy, or the guys (seriously, whether it's one or a handful, who gives a shit?), blind when I only suggest paying them. And I will pay them. I have no reason to kill them, I turn them into accomplices. And then I have that key. And that means I have that key to all the research happening in your country. Can you imagine just how much I can pay your underpaid public office workers before this becomes unfeasible for me?
In other words, in simple words so even you politicians get it: Do that and NOBODY in their sane mind will place their R&D data into a place where your insanity rules. R&D is one of the things you can very easily move abroad. It's not like delivering takes lots of money. Relocating the people I need is peanuts compared to the risk of doing business where you invent insane laws like this.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
What ever happened to it being illegal to break encryption? Weren't some lecturers arrested for speaking on the topic a few years ago? Why are the Feds and their sniveling little Gestapo Israeli buddies not indicted?
... Diane Feinstein was one of the Senators sponsoring this bill. I hope the pro-privacy groups are taking note of this and will be reminding the voters when she's up for re-election just how much she thinks of her constituents' privacy.
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
Will there be a US and export versions of Windows and Mac OS? I guess the situation with Linux is a bit better e.g. Red Had builds a crippled version for the US market and CentOS do the secure version entirely outside the US. Even if Microsoft and Apple are allowed to make export versions, or do it via an end run around the law, to try and keep customers, would people trust them? Yea, I know, my country is one of many that would pass the same law in the interest of "free trade" so it probably doesn't matter.
Hopefully this proposed law will fail...
There IS NO unbreakable encryption! Given infinite time, everything can eventually be brute-forced. Assuming they manage to somehow pass this into law, the instant one person with a decent lawyer gets charged, it's falling apart in court.
Because encryption isn't unbreakable.
It just takes a while.
This signature is false.
Cheap posturing by a country where it makes no difference. Now for West Germany to have chosen to nuclear free during the cold war - THAT would have been impressive, and stupid. But NZ? I can conceive of no scenario where nukes would have help protect NZ. But nukes for Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania? Great move...
All encryption is breakable. The recipient has to be able to read it, right? You just have to factor the product of two very big prime numbers to break public key encryption.
The US Constitution does not give the federal government the power to restrict or even to control technology used to secure communications or "private papers" (my 17th century label for data), does it? The 4th amendment clearly states that the federal government can't even try to collect information without having a warrant that clearly identifies the information to be collected. Since this clearly defined restriction on what the federal government may do comes only in a statement otherwise confirming a complete right to privacy from the snooping eyes and ears of everyone including the federal government (how else can the right to be secure... be interpreted?), it surely can't be construed as giving the government the sweeping power to control the very means of protecting that right of the people, can it?
I don't recall the Constitution handing the power to control the manner in which communications or papers (data) are secured so as to preserve the givernment's limited jurisdiction to "sneak a peak" when warranted (pun intended). Ciphers and other means to protect information from unauthorized disclosure were well-known to the framers of the Constitution, so this cannot be claimed to be an omission from ignorance.
If this bill passes, I'll open a bank that's not online. No Internet connection at all.
It'd be the only US bank that's safe.
--PeterM
Fine, I use OpenBSD. There is no way the project members would weaken encryption or build in backdoors. Fuck the US Government.
It says that any person or company providing encryption software must cooperate with law enforcement to retrieve data on demand. What if I get encryption software from a foreign vendor with no US presence? Isn't this simply killing US encryption vendors? What am I missing here?
linquendum tondere
As Julian Sanchez insightfully tweeted:
"Burr-Feinstein may be the most insane thing I've ever seen seriously offered as a piece of legislation. It is "do magic" in legalese."
What stupid fucks. A big OTP of truly random numbers. Encrypts anything. Completely unbreakable. Period. Anybody that tells you it is breakable by breaking the people using it (they use it just once remember) don't want you to use encryption and won't admit that you can do that with the best encryption available (the kind with good constants, not NSA constants). Throw in a little steganography with a large lossy data set (e.g. video). Only outlaws will use it so their messages will get through. In the mean time, hackers destroy the American banking industry, not to mention the software industry since the world won't use our software any more.
Then what becomes illegal? Math? College? Communication with other countries? Stupid fucks.
Your "encryption" is only unbreakable if it is an isolated ciphertext message. If your phone calls and whereabouts have been monitored for a while because of some suspicion, and you used any of those words before, your encryption method is broken, just like a one-time pad or ECB message block is compromised if it is used more than once. By compromised/broken I mean that the attacker has reduced the complexity from infinity to some finite (possibly still large) number.
Avantslash: low-bandwidth mobile slashdot.
It's a bad bill, for sure. But it is explicit in the text that it would not require or prohibit any technology.
It does require the manufacturer to assist. It may not be possible for them to help but generally speaking, being impossible to follow the law is seen as a valid defence.
You already know who is right (hint).
I think you use the same argument for this back door as there is to wire taps. Phone companies are required to allow law enforcement to listen in on phone calls. General right to privacy, but with a court order (well, that's how it's supposed to work at least, and how it used to be) law enforcement can gain access.
Now they want this wire tap facility attached to encryption. Following that argument, I don't see how that could be a violation to your constitution.
The technical implementation of such wire tap/back door facility, however, is a whole different discussion.
1. I can trust evil people to do me harm.
2. I cannot trust my government to not do me harm.
3. I cannot trust the federal government to protect me.
4. I cannot trust the state government to protect me by reason of the incorporation doctrine having stopped short of compelling the state government to recognize my personal right to effective self-defense. I life in a "justifiable need" state wherein the only document that would compel the police chief to issue would be death certificate.
5. Political correctness, foreign debt and the Snivel Rights Movement have converted the US Constitution into a suicide pact. It has also converted state and local law enforcement into revenue agents targeting people like myself because I am a subclinically disabled, straight, white, Christian male.
This message has been brought to you by Karl Martell. EDUCATE YOURSELF.
So what's to stop a given company from offering a modularly architected product that allows the user to slot in encryption plugins from third parties? And if those third parties are somewhere overseas, well...
- First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
Both R and D are working together again to shaft us. But they are so different! We really do have a choice guys!
Next step, Americans stop buying American computers. Already, no-one in the rest of the world considers American computers to be safe for anything other than games.
To survive, the remains of the American computer industry will need to get international, and get their security management out of the country, out of American citizenship, and out of control by American bodies. I don't see them doing that. So this is another in the death-of-a-thousand-cuts inflicted by the American government on the American computing industry.
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
Fuck drones.. We hacked Israeli satallites for the up coming cremation of care ritual to stream live on cnn / YouTube 2016
While the senate is trying to legislate impossible things (breaking encryption is exponentially hard, but not impossible) why not get rid of that pesky irrational number, pi, and make it easy, like 22/7 or just 3 so it's easier for senators to do arithmetic.
Good thing there's no such thing as unbreakable encryption.
Preventing unbreakable encryption on the Internet is about like passing laws against cockroaches.
You can't throw away, shred, or burn any papers. You need to box up every letter you receive and every bill you get, plus any writings or diary entries. The government will come along monthly to scan all your documents and destroy them safely.
So, what you're really saying, is that nobody in the world considers Chinese, Taiwanese, and Japanese computers to be safe, as that is where they are all predominantly manufactured for the entire world.
@Mindless Drivel: 100% of Twitter posts ever Tweeted.
Plus, with vendors with multiple, non-overlapping commitments, you have a better chance of detecting nefarious activity. Viz : if you suspect your Chinese router of talking to Beijing, then you put the test example downstream of a Taiwanese router and use that to look for back-channel traffic. You don't expect the Chinese and Taiwanese TLAs to be cooperating with each other, do you?
I never really trusted American equipment - going back to the 1980s when I first started to buy computing equipment. But since IBM sold their manufacturing business to Lenovo, I've been happy to buy them. I ordered a new laptop last night (an X-200 - flashed with Libreboot, of course).
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
So what about encryption requirements for the legal system ( criminal history data must be kept secure ) ?
The lawful members of courts and law enforcement can have access, but if the encryption is dumbed-down, then the quackers can get to it too...
And criminal organizations... And foreign govs...
learn some math. I suggest you add some dead people to your list of references: ....
Whittaker and Watson, Titchmarsh, Rainville, Wilf, and Gantmacher for starters, then on to more specialty math,
like fractals, chaos theory, turbulent flow simulators, and maybe even some MHD
Then develop a program to do encryption/decryption, and write it in assembly, and make it dynamic ( it writes
code and data over parts of its original code and data during execution....
Then burn the notes do a secure delete and write over the source files a few times, and forget how it was done.
Just figuring out the code will be a major hassle, and without a key, breaking it would be a long-career endeavor.
I vote we exile Feinstein.