Slashdot Mirror
US Anti-Encryption Law Is So 'Braindead' It Will Outlaw File Compression (theregister.co.uk)
An anonymous reader writes: The bill released Thursday by Senators Richard Burr and Dianne Feinstein to force U.S. companies to build backdoors into their encryption systems has been further dissected by experts. In less than 24 hours after the Court Orders Act of 2016 draft was released, 43,000 signatures have been added to a petition calling for the bill to be withdrawn. Bruce Schneier, the writer of the books on modern cryptography, said the bill would make most of what the NSA does illegal, unless no such agency is willing to backdoor its own encrypted communications. "This is the most braindead piece of legislation I've ever seen," Schneier told The Register. "The person who wrote this either has no idea how technology works or just doesn't care." Schneier says cryptographic code will be affected by this legislation, as well as "lossy compression algorithms" that are used to reduce the size of images for sending through email, which won't work in reverse and add back the data removed. Files that can't be decrypted on demand to their original state, and files that can't be decompressed back to their exact originals, all look the same to this draft now. He said even deleted data could be covered in this legislation.
Of course the politicians involved are retards. They're just doing what the FBI and NSA are telling them to do. So far as these stunningly mindless halfwits are concerned, computers are magic bosses and those weirdo nerdy wizards should just do what they are told.
Want better politicians, don't elect fucking morons.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Well, Feinstein's opponent last time was Carly, and after what she did to Lucent and to HP, I was damned if I was going to vote for her.
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
If lossy compression is affected, wouldn't compiling be affected too?
If that's what you want, you need to attack the places the politicians care about - their wallet and their power, and that means impeachment. But in the present system, politicians don't fear impeachment because it's such a convoluted process -- it doesn't happen much. What I propose is a process for direct impeachment, where every quarter constituents can vote to impeach or not. Perhaps semi-annually. It's like a job performance review -- they work for us so we should be able to fire them at any time if we think they are doing their job poorly. The reason these people remain in office is because the terms are so long, by the time re-elections are due, everyone has forgotten about the past 2-4 years of shenanigans. We need to close that loop, and get the people directly involved, on short timeframes. The colossal amount of fail happening in the government right now is truly embarrassing. We need to make it easier for the people to remove bad leaders. If we can't have direct democracy, I think direct impeachment is a good alternative.
In addition to requiring all encryption products in the future must have backdoors, it also requires that all encryption software from the past already have been backdoored unless you want to have to brute-force it in response to a court order to "render technical assistance".
If passed, this would open up a novel new extortion attack where you intentionally use non-backdoored software to encrypt some data, thoroughly delete the unencrypted versions, create a lawsuit where that data is part of discovery, and then get your opponent in the lawsuit (who is conspiring with you) to ask the court to order the company which distributed the encryption tool to render the technical assistance needed to decrypt. Thus the company will be on the hook for the cost of all the needed electricity to run all the CPUs or GPUs to brute-force the encryption key, except that you conveniently offer that if they can help work out a settlement in the lawsuit (i.e. pay you or your conspirator), then maybe the lawsuit can be dropped, thus vacating the court order.
What you are supposed to get out of this story:
"HEHE Look how SILLY this law is!
That silly old government [with the most educated people in the world filling its offices] keeps making silly dumb laws!
If only we could get people who understood the ISSUES to make laws for us everything would be OK! OH WELLLLL"
This is one of the oldest tricks in the book. Feigning ignorance to herd people into a viewpoint which is more sympathetic to the subject than the viewpoint of the truth: malicious intent against the viewer.
This law is a power grab. There is nothing ignorant about it. This is pressure on an important area for the rich/high-class/corporate interest.
Don't ever fall for this trick!
Now the question is, why is this site and the referenced news agency helping with this deception? Surely a PROFESSIONAL would be aware of the possibility of this deception? Of course they are.
So why are they helping?
It couldn't be because the tangled interests essentially make the media interest and the corporate interest one body could it?
No, that would be CONSPIRACY and would be very wrong indeed to think about!!!
I will be on the Maine State ballot for Senate, district 17, this fall. I'm actually a classic Libertarian or, perhaps, a Socialist Libertarian. If I were in Europe, you'd call me a Socialist Democrat - more likely than not. Though, I've got all the signatures and the paperwork is turned in (I had all that done before I even went on my winter vacation), I am kind of doubting my desire to hold office.
The reasons are long and complex. I don't want the job to begin with. I've neither the need for money nor the need for the infamy. I don't need the prying and, while I don't mind being honest, there are some things I just don't feel like having to explain because they occupy more than 140 characters or a bumper sticker. I still have time to remove my name, prior to the ballot printings, and I'm not entirely sure what I want to do.
A long time ago, I was going to be the next Jim Morrison. We had a band, we even had a demo tape, and we did a bunch of concerts down the East Coast. Then, we went to the West Coast. The following year, I was in the Marines. I learned something back then. The people you want to be able to listen, can't. Had the crowd been a little less noisy and listened to the music then maybe we would have ended up with a record deal. Instead, the bars were loud and fights were frequent and the people you wanted to be able to hear, couldn't.
I wonder if I'm approaching that same sort of thing with politics. I don't want the job. I never wanted the job. I've just been asked to run many, many times and I finally agreed that "I'd consider it" if they could get enough signatures. It's a rather small district, up in North Western, Maine. I have better ways to waste my time - even if it means posting on Slashdot, then trying to change the juggernaut that is humanity. I am not that powerful and, as I said, the ones I want to hear - can't.
So, I don't know... The missus and I discuss it nearly every day. I'm headed back to Maine in just a few more weeks. I'll miss my time in the Gulf but I'm missing Maine even more. I think the State ought to be a fair, just, balanced, and compassionate organization that is there for the benefit and not for the detriment. That's why I opted to run as a Senator.
By the way, the band was horrible. Absolutely horrific and had no business being on stage. Separately, we weren't bad. Together, we kind of sucked. Though, once in a while, if the declination of the moon was right and the level of intoxication was just so - you could feel the music, and I do not mean the vibrations of the air via sound waves. All-in-all, I'm much happier that my life turned out the way it has.
But, I fear the same problem will be there with politics. It's like the Law of Diminishing Returns. It's everywhere. Those you want to be able to listen, can't. Not much of what I have to say fits in a bunch of check-marks, bumper stickers, or in 140 characters or less. I learned that at a very young age. I don't have a middle name. I have four names, no hyphen in the middle, and thus I have no middle name but I do have two middle names. When you fill those forms out with your handy dandy #2 pencil, there's just no room on there for me. They have one slot for a middle initial and I don't have one - I have two. It was then that I realized that the check-boxes of life just don't seem to fit. Funny how it all turns out in the end.
But, you can now say you've heard a politician (even if just an aspiring politician - who may decide to not run) say such things. I don't think most people want to hear it. It means that they've got to be accountable. It means that they're responsible. It means that they need to take action, accept risks, and live with the consequences of those choices. I'm not sure that I don't blame them. Life's easy when you're a coward.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."