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."

Comments

Uh huh...

[EmeraldBot]

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.

Re:Uh huh...

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Uh huh...

[skegg]

Heck, we know more people die every year:

    - in backyard swimming pools
    - from bee stings
    - from peanut allergies

than from terrorism.

But of course, we also know this isn't about preventing terrorism.

Re:Uh huh...

[drinkypoo]

Are we going to start improving our public transit? No, of course not, because that's not the sexy ratings our senators here want.

No?

I think Feinstein is an evil hypocrite, in so many words, but California is doing more to promote public transportation than most states.

Re:Uh huh...

[Trailer Trash]

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" -

Re:Uh huh...

[AmiMoJo]

"General welfare" isn't "healthcare" - not by a long shot. It's tied to national defense, or "common defense" as they put it.

On what grounds do you base that claim? It seems like general welfare and defence are simply mentioning two separate things in that sentence, with no reason for them to be linked other than that they may both be paid for by taxation.

Re:Uh huh...

[jammer170]

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.

When are the terrorist plotting to kill Americans?

[Anonymous Coward]

All the time. Seriously, that's what terrorists do. Does anybody think it's a part-time thing or whatever? "Let's see Achmed... Tomorrow we'll go fishing, then we hit the beach and next week we'll plot to kill Americans. But it must be wednesday because I have bingo on monday and a garage sale on tuesday, and the rest of the week I have to fill in for Jamal who's having a jihad on non-recyclable grocery bags."

Can't have both

[Anonymous Coward]

"We need strong encryption to protect personal data, but we also need to know when terrorists are plotting to kill Americans."

Can't have both, buddy.

Re: Complete waste of time

[Anonymous Coward]

Then the mere existence of GPG on your machine will be enough to send you to jail. It's that simple, really. Make a few high-profile examples and the populace will get the message. As for those die-hard cryptonerds... I bet Feinstein would love to see them all in jail away from computers, where they won't bother anyone anymore. Make no mistake: those in power are not the made of the same stuff we are. They are royalty, we are small folk. If they have to destroy thousands of us to reach their goals, they will do it. Your computer is powerless against the might of the law. Obey or be destroyed. Your choice.

Feinstein is senile and needs to be recalled

[He Who Has No Name]

This is pretty much the nail in the coffin.

If her prior activities that would make an Inspector General blanch weren't enough, this monstrosity is pretty much proof-positive of her loss of mental faculties.

When lying is not enough

[Artem S. Tashkinov]

Terrorists and criminals are increasingly using encryption to foil law enforcement efforts, even in the face of a court order.

Yeah, right.

Oh, wait, the most recent terrorist attacks in Belgium were carried out using disposable one time cell phones without using encryption of any kind.

Who are those politicians are trying to fool? Why the terrorists cannot create their own encrypted applications which do not save any data whatsoever? I mean we already have Telegram, Wire and many other apps with P2P encryption and timers which pretty much guarantee no party will ever be able to restore or decrypt the content of conversations.

Woo! BFAEB!

[wonkey_monkey]

Burr-Feinstein Anti-Encryption Bill

I heard they're opening for Aerosmith next month.

This bill might not be so bad

[Anonymous Coward]

The proposal itself may be awful, the likely consequences would be good. This could very well be the final push for many companies processing personal information to finally leave the US and settle in a country less hostile to privacy.

Re: Complete waste of time

[meadow]

Feinstein is appalling but not more appalling than the idiots in the state of California - who supposedly are so intelligent and cutting-edge - who elected her and have kept her in office.

The fact of the matter is that democracy in the United States is completely broken. And most people are profoundly deluded. They get up and go to work each day in a state of delusion about what is going on in their community and their state and country, as long as there is enough crap to distract them. As the saying goes: Keep them doped on religion, sex, and tv. Only perhaps science and self-righteous PC liberalism is the new religion, and video games and other things compete with tv.

It sickens me to see the anti-Trump sentiment being vocalized especially by deluded idiots who have no solution whatsoever for the serious problems occurring other than to continue being deluded. Zuckerberg had the audacity to criticize immigration policy as he lives in a $10 million home, has private security, flies around the world and stays in 5 star hotels. Yeah, try living in the neighborhoods which are being destroyed by the hell that America is becoming and then proffer that self-righteous tripe. But its never the blood of the "humanitarians" that is spilled, is it?

Re:Campaign contributions

[MancunianMaskMan]

To make this point crystal-clear: Burr and Feinstein wrote the bill as idiotic as possible, as a threat to extort money from the lobbying industry in return for not passing the law, or watering it down(*).
How selfless of them, they write the opposing politicians' meal ticket!
I'm sure they'll return the favour on some other braindead "policy issue"
(*) In comparison to the leaked draft copy, they removed the limitation to certain investigations (drugs, terror, kiddiefiddling...) so as to have some wriggle-room in the following bargaining process.

It's not Big Brother

[NReitzel]

Senators Richard Burr and Dianne Feinstein are neither the oppressive arm of Government nor are they idiots.

They are, however, profoundly ignorant of how things work in the real (non-Beltway) world. They are of the same ilk that cannot understand that email kept on a small private server (small target) with a staff that gives a damn is quite likely a lot more secure than on a "secured government server."

They must be thinking, "the company will provide a back door and keep it secret." What a great concept. Unfortunately that idea belongs to a world where it took a whole government and a bevy of codebreakers to crack a simple substitution code - the Enigma codes. Today, a single hacker can put together thousands of cpu core resources to attack any system. If there exists a back door, if there is any way into an encrypted system, some 14 year old in Romania or Great Britian (or China!) will find it. Consider the fact that the FBI hired such to go after in iPad, and the thing was compromised in short order.

And lest we think that this is a good thing, so that governments can go after terrorists, let me pose a question on a personal level: "How big is your bank account? Would you mind if you woke up some morning and found it empty?"

There are thousands of terror targets and probably tens of thousands of would-be terrorists. There are quite literally billions of targets in the private sector. It won't make the even news for very long if Mr. Smith gets cleaned out, but to Mr. Smith it may seem pretty terrible.

And there is a worse side: Let's say that the government requires back doors everywhere. Does that mean that terrorists are going to give up and throw up their hands figuratively? Hell, no. Any competent programmer can come up with an encryption scheme not known to the government, perhaps with vulnerabiilities which are also unknown to the government. The good guys (Us!) have opened our bank accounts to the script kiddies, and the bad guys will go right on using strong encryption. The government will be right back where they are now, having to hire a hacker to break that encryption.

We will have given up the keys to our doors without putting a small dent in terrorism.

Not a good choice, imo.

Re:It's not Big Brother

[Kjella]

And there is a worse side: Let's say that the government requires back doors everywhere. Does that mean that terrorists are going to give up and throw up their hands figuratively? Hell, no. Any competent programmer can come up with an encryption scheme not known to the government, perhaps with vulnerabiilities which are also unknown to the government.

Please... the number of programmers that could come up with good cryptographic primitives is 0.1% or less. You're much better off just using AES for symmetric, RSA for asymmetric and DHE for key exchange with forward secrecy that tons of crypto analysists have spent years on and not come up with anything of significance. The flaws are usually all implementation and backdoors, not the building blocks themselves.

A point in there somewhere.

[Chrontius]

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.”

We do - but we cannot have both.

Choose wisely.

Re: Complete waste of time

[drinkypoo]

Feinstein is appalling but not more appalling than the idiots in the state of California - who supposedly are so intelligent and cutting-edge - who elected her and have kept her in office.

Yep. Feinstein gets votes on two bases; her vagina, and being anti-gun. There's literally no other reason to vote for her, because everything she does is harmful. She's being supported by superannuated spoiled children who want a nanny state.

Alternate name

[Dunbal]

An alternate name for the bill could be the Burr-Fenstein Fucking Waste of Public Time And Money act.

It is time to defeat traitors such as Feinstein

[Taco Cowboy]

If we Americans still believe in Freedom ...

If we Americans still believe in Liberty ...
 
We should start a definite push in dealing traitors such as Feinstein a decisive blow

They should no longer be allowed to weaken our Constitution

They should no longer be allowed to undermine the spirit laid down by the founder of this great republic

Shame on Feinstein !

Shame on traitors who hate Freedom and Liberty !

Re:It is time to defeat traitors such as Feinstein

[Dragonslicer]

She's not a traitor... .she is just an incredibly Low IQ person that has some serious sociopath tendencies.

Why the hell Californians keep electing her I'll never understand.

There's this notion that members of Congress, despite passing legislation for the federal government, are supposed to do what's best for their own state instead of what's best for the country as a whole. There's also the issue that influence in Congress, particularly via committee membership and leadership, is based entirely on seniority. Combine these two and you have the problem that replacing Feinstein would lower California's importance in Congress, even if her replacement is clearly better.

Re:It is time to defeat traitors such as Feinstein

[Dragonslicer]

But Feinstein is different. She is just as much of an asshat as Burr on social authoritarianism, but also has all the economic authoritarianism of the Democratic Party. If you took the absolute worst of American Politics, and blended them into a Frankenstein chimera, you would get Dianne Feinstein. She has no redeeming qualities whatsoever.

Is ideological consistency a redeeming quality? She isn't an authoritarian only when it's convenient or when it matches her religious dogma. She's a True Authoritarian.

Re: Complete waste of time

[danceswithtrees]

...very few encrypt compared to that.

Very few people buy things online? I think the more accurate view is that very few people realize how important strong encryption is to what they already do.

Re:Not just stupid people

[Jason Levine]

Then there are also the power-mad people. These people might understand how encryption works, but they don't care because they see something that isn't under their control. They can't tolerate this so they come up with a reason why having this not under their control is bad ("terrorism") and then hammer the American public and politicians with this reason. It doesn't matter if the reason isn't true (terrorists have been using clear text communication) or if their reason wouldn't be fixed by passing US laws (terrorists would use strong encryption that's already available). The thing that matters to them is getting this thing under their control - even by a little bit. Then, they can expand their control until all non-backdoored strong encryption is banned.

Obligatory CGP Gray

[dahlellama]

CGP Gray just released a really good video on encryption.