Slashdot Mirror


Burr-Feinstein Anti-Encryption Bill Is Officially Released (techcrunch.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from TechCrunch: Senators Richard Burr and Dianne Feinstein released the official version of their anti-encryption bill today after a draft appeared online last week. The bill, titled the Compliance with Court Orders Act 2016, would require tech firms to decrypt customers' data at a court's request. The bill is not expected to get anywhere in the Senate. President Obama has also indicated that he will not support the bill, Reuters reports. The bill requires legislation requires communications services to backdoor their encryption in order to provide "intelligible information or data, or appropriate technical assistance to obtain such information or data." Sen. Feinstein stated, "The bill we have drafted would simply provide that, if a court of law issues an order to render technical assistance or provide decrypted data, the company or individual would be required to do so. Today, terrorists and criminals are increasingly using encryption to foil law enforcement efforts, even in the face of a court order. We need strong encryption to protect personal data, but we also need to know when terrorists are plotting to kill Americans."

4 of 314 comments (clear)

  1. Uh huh... by EmeraldBot · · Score: 5, Informative

    In the US, just over 3,000 people have died of terrorist attacks. In 21 years. How many millions die from car crashes alone each year? Are we going to start improving our public transit? No, of course not, because that's not the sexy ratings our senators here want.

    The really sad part isthat these are people who voted in, they are not dictators or such. A majority of people are actually stupid enough to vote for such idiots, and it makes me wonder where our future is headed. Given the rather extreme views that have become fashionable over the last year, I don't think it's too far off we'll soon be looking at the level of control shown in Russia today. I sure hope it was worth losing our privacy, safety, and fundamental values to save us from those "evil terrorists", who haven't played a role in 99.999% of the population. Might I point out, that's not an exaggeration.

    --
    "Set a man a fire, he'll be warm for the rest of the night. Set a man afire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life."
    1. Re:Uh huh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      In the US, just over 3,000 people have died of terrorist attacks. In 21 years. How many millions die from car crashes alone each year?

      Posting because that crashes number is so far off... in most years, somewhere in the neighborhood of 25,000 to 30,000 people die in car crashes in the U.S. Still a hell of a lot more than terrorists kill, and you have a good point. Many more Americans will be killed by mundane items in their daily lives, like, say, hamburgers, than ever will be by terrorists.

    2. Re:Uh huh... by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 4, Informative

      I beg to differ, as the Constitution specifically mentions the general welfare of the nation in the same clause as defense.

      This is probably a big part of what's wrong with our country today - people who grew up not understanding the basics of the Constitution. On both "sides of the aisle", by the way.

      Let's look at the Constitution. The preamble mentions the general welfare:

      We the people of the United States, in order to:
      1. form a more perfect union
      2. establish justice
      3. insure domestic tranquility
      4. provide for the common defense
      5. promote the general welfare
      6. and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity
      do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

      This part isn't "law"; it's simply an introductory paragraph explaining their goals in creating the Constitution.

      Article I, Section 8 specifically enumerates the powers that are granted to Congress (which creates law) from the Constitution. It's short, so I'll include the entire thing:

      The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

      To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

      To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

      To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

      To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

      To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;

      To establish post offices and post roads;

      To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

      To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;

      To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;

      To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

      To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

      To provide and maintain a navy;

      To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

      To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

      To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

      To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And

      To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

      The line to which you refer actually explains that Congress can collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, and then to use that money to pay for the common defense and general welfare. "General welfare" isn't "healthcare" -

    3. Re:Uh huh... by jammer170 · · Score: 4, Informative

      History. It doesn't take much to research the history of the general welfare clause. A quick Wikipedia search reveals a lot of information. For instance, Madison, who actually wrote the U. S. Constitution, was pretty explicit in the Federalist papers that the document was to be interpreted narrowly, and even specifically points to the general welfare clause as an example. There was even a Supreme Court case that upheld the narrow interpretation. It wasn't until 1930s that a different Supreme Court basically decided they really wanted to uphold some law/ruling, and basically decided to ignore all the previous history to do so.

      --
      Remember, you can't look dignified when your having fun! Don't take life too seriously, you'll never get out of it alive