Feinstein-Burr Encryption Legislation Is Dead In The Water (slashdot.org)

An anonymous reader writes from a report via Reuters: After the San Bernardino terrorist attack, key U.S. lawmakers pledged to require technology companies to give law enforcement agencies a "back door" to encrypted communications and electronic devices. Now, the push for legislation is dead only months after the terrorist attack. In April, Senators Richard Burr and Dianne Feinstein released the official version of their anti-encryption bill with hopes for it to pass through Congress. But with the lack of White House support for the legislation as well as the high-profile court case between Apple and the Justice Department, the legislation will likely not be introduced this year, and even if it were, it would stand no chance of advancing, said sources familiar with the matter. "The short life of the push for legislation illustrates the intractable nature of the debate over digital surveillance and encryption, which has been raging in one form or another since the 1990s," reports Reuters. Technology companies believe security would be undermined if it were to create a "back door" for law enforcement, while law enforcement agencies believe they need to monitor phone calls, emails, text messages and encrypted data in general for security purposes.

Comments

Good

[MAXOMENOS]

It was stupid legislation crafted by profoundly ignorant people.

Re:Good

[drinkypoo]

It was stupid legislation crafted by profoundly ignorant people.

You misspelled "malicious" there, sport. Both of these winners have been a cancer on The People from the beginning.

Re:Good

[axewolf]

You are a HUGE part of this problem because you think about things like this.
They are not ignorant. They know exactly what they are doing and also how it looks to you. That is their job. That is their purpose in life.
You need to sit down and have a long, long think.
Who is pressuring the government to be the hand that intercepts all communications and why? What is really done with this data? Who really has access to it? What are the possibilities of what could happen if a malicious and powerful entity had access to this data?
This will no doubt yield some very dark answers if you bother to think it through.
Or you could keep playing the fool and just shrug all that off and say "HUH I GUESS THEY'RE JUST SOME DUMMIES LOL".
The truth is everyone with money is waging a war against you. You are being hunted like any beast.

They are winning the war without resistance. Apparently there was no backlash against mass surveillance. Now that they won that huge and pivotal "battle" (massacre) they are moving to round up the guerillas.

And no, you are not entitled to your opinion. This is not kindergarten. Don't you have a family depending on you? You "being entitled to your opinion" could cost them their future, and the future of everyone around you. You must have a realistic point of view. Opinions are for things that don't matter.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

NEVER attribute to stupidity that which can adequately be explained by malice.

You don't get to the point of having written legislation without knowing just what the **** it is you're writing.

Re:Good

[bug_hunter]

Whoah there buddy.
I'm going to agree with the OP.
The government on the whole is ignorant about tech. They're very "I'm an ideas man" kind of people, which is code for, "I can say stuff without having to think the consequences through".
They think you can open up encryption safely without the "bad guys" getting to it, and they also think that law enforcement is on whole the "good guys".

Counter point : You are a HUGE Part of the problem because you make everybody resisting well meaning but ultimately stupid legislation look like tin foil hat wearers causing our objections to be dismissed outright.
Counter counter point : Ignorance or shadow war - we both want these kind of people out of office. Don't go on a massive personal attack on somebody who would ally with you against this kind of stuff.

Re:Good

[axewolf]

okay how do you know any of that? How does that fit in with them being highly educated highly paid highly popular highly successful members of society?
you think they don't know anyone who seriously knows about any given industry? you don't think they are FRIENDS with such people? you think they don't talk to these people and get honest opinions?

Are you a sentient being? Seriously, your point of view is literally retarded.
You. Are. The. Problem.
You are too cowardly to look at things for what they obviously are. If you want to help, just stand aside, and shut up.

Re:Good

[drinkypoo]

Feinstein has her points that keep her in office.

Oh yeah?

The fact that she wants to get guns off the streets is the main thing.

No, she does not.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

This right here is my biggest concern. If OPM could get hacked multiple times, leaking the names of who worked for what, then a server farm somewhere can likely get breached which holds this data. Even with security, if someone wanted that data badly enough, they could use the OPM disclosure, and put the thumbscrews on an employee who might have access it (or their family) for access, XKCD, $5 wrench style.

Ultimately, this is where I step away from the "I have nothing to hide" crowd. Legit LEOs are one thing. Criminals who purchased phone records, conversations recorded, vehicle numbers and locations, and so on which were stolen from an under-secured database are another.

If people don't think this is a threat... wait until the next recession, which is thundering at us come November. It is a perfect storm in place. Between compromised computers, freely floating data, a medium of exchange that is ideal for shady transactions, people willing to sell out their neighbors for a buck (or a Satoshi), and gangs, I wouldn't be surprised to read about some street toughs buying schedules of where people were in a neighborhood from a foreign hacker group, with a real-time map of where the victim is, to make burglaries, kidnappings, and home invasions a lot more lucrative. Or, we can see a party using the stolen data to maximize a terrorist attack's impact.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, australia, where the nanny state has taken over already.. No thanks. I'll keep my wild west wild.

Re:Good

[MrKaos]

It was stupid legislation crafted by profoundly ignorant people.

You misspelled "malicious" there, sport. Both of these winners have been a cancer on The People from the beginning.

Malicious indeed dp, according to the draft of the Bill if it had passed so too would the meta-data rentention provisions casually obscured in the definition of "DATA" in Sec 4.5 to include "COMMUNICATIONS IDENTIFYING INFORMATION" defined in Sec 4.1.A-C.

Section 4.1 defined that to be "dialing, routing, adressing, switching, signaling, processing, transmitting and other data that", (A) was *not* the contents of the communication, (B) identifies the origin, destination, time, date, duration, termination or status of each communication generated, received or controlled by a user and (C - here is the kick in the balls) includes (C.i) public, local and source addressing including (C.i.I) local and public IP address, (C.i.II) static or dynamic ports. (C.ii) MAC, IMIE and network service identifiers used by each party, (C.iii) Service address identifiers used by each party (C.iv) QOS, packet size (C.v) all co-ordinated to UTC.

I doubt this is the last you have seen of an attempt to pass a meta-data retention Bill as there were simply no discussion about these provisions in this bill that I saw.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

Couching. An. Ad. Hominem. In. Bad. Grammar. Does. Not. Make. You. Smart.

You are unfortunately representative of the unwashed masses who think that an "argument" is synonymous with a "fight" and are ready to present the second whenever you encounter the first.

You can do better than this. Nobody will think less of you if you try.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

If you outlaw guns then only outlaws will have guns.

So which do you prefer?

1) Bad guys have guns
2) Bad guys and good guys have guns

Re:Good

[Applehu Akbar]

"The fact that she wants to get guns off the streets is the main thing. If the US follows in Australia's lead, it will bring the country out of the Wild West and into the modern world. "

So that we can be defenseless, as the Europeans are now finding out to their chagrin? At least Australia is an island, with no permeable land borders or with the whole ISIS guerrilla army just a few island hops away.

Re:Good

[bug_hunter]

Hey axewolf.
Here's an example of politicians being all "I will tell you what the solution is, you guys can work out the details" when the solution is bad or unworkable because no experts were consulted https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

These people are very smart at business, good at making deals. That doesn't mean they're smart at tech or give enough respect to experts.
As someone who works in tech who often consults with business people, I've seen this behaviour a lot. Often I can influence the situation enough, many times I can't.

By all means, I'm not saying that politicians have not been largely corrupted, and many prefer power over benefiting the common man, that doesn't mean that every bad decision is due to a malicious plot. This was just some people ignorant of the facts, who were too proud to be convinced otherwise, when they thought "Terrorists use encryption - we need to make it so we can counter terrorist encryption".

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

For every person killed by a terrorist last year in the US and Europe, 100 were killed to gun violence in the US. Even Venezuela, where the state enacted complete gun control (removing citizen ownership of all firearms), has had far less violence in its turmoil than before, with shootings not happening, even with their economy in a collapsed state. The proof is quite evident... more firearms, more deaths.

Re:Good

[EmeraldBot]

"The fact that she wants to get guns off the streets is the main thing. If the US follows in Australia's lead, it will bring the country out of the Wild West and into the modern world. "

So that we can be defenseless, as the Europeans are now finding out to their chagrin? At least Australia is an island, with no permeable land borders or with the whole ISIS guerrilla army just a few island hops away.

What, as opposed to the US, which is isolated by two oceans and even farther away than Australia is? Also, your gun policy is pretty weak for fighting terrorists - not only are people without practice horrible shots, they're not going to carry a pump action shot gun to the grocery store, and terrorists attack soft targets like schools or public squares, where not only will people be unlikely to carry them but even if you had one you'd be unable to effectively utilize it.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

La Pierre, is that you?

Re:Good

[drinkypoo]

Also, your gun policy is pretty weak for fighting terrorists

ah, it's funny you mention that...

not only are people without practice horrible shots, they're not going to carry a pump action shot gun to the grocery store,

In your home, dealing with one intruder in a hallway, a pump action shotgun is a fine piece of equipment, especially if sawed short so that it's not inconvenient in hallways. In a mall, a shotgun is mostly a way to throw lots of ricochet material around the place. You want a semi-automatic handgun for dealing with the ranges and necessary accuracy involved.

Now, many states don't let you carry a firearm around with you, and that is a violation of our constitution. So while you are correct, it's not our fault. That actually stems from state gun policy contradicting federal gun law, as stated in the second amendment: "Keep and bear arms." And since somehow the second amendment seems to be immune from incorporation, the states don't have to follow the constitution there.

The 2A was meant to avoid the need for a standing military, and to put the means of overthrow of the government into the hands of the people. States which don't permit you to carry your weapon are deliberately sabotaging our constitution.

California actually used to have a law on the books saying that you could carry your gun in any public place. Alas, they decided to build a police state instead of a free state, and wiped that one away. It doesn't do to have the citizenry armed if you mean to implement fascism, and that's precisely what has been done in our worst neighborhoods. Onwards towards profit!

Feinstein claims she doesn't carry her purse gun any more, but we only have her word for that. She is protected by criminals in uniform, who are most certainly armed. Here's a fun one: laws will allow people to obtain a 21-day restraining order barring a family member from owning guns if it is believed that they are in danger of committing a violent act. A person concerned about the mental state of a family member will be able to make a request to police, who after investigating the claim would submit the petition for a temporary restraining order to a court. If granted, police will require the subject of the order to surrender any guns and ammunition they already have. I know someone who was committed to a mental institution for being gay, admittedly not in California. Took them two weeks to get out. If you've got shit family they can just tell lies about you and hey, the cops will come get your guns just like they said wasn't going to happen. I bought my handgun due to the immediate threat of violence presented by a family member. You know what would be more fucked up than that? Not being able to do so.

The right to self-defense is a basic tenet of common law. It really doesn't matter whether the defense is from internal or external attackers. The only reason governments want to disarm citizens is so that it can treat them like garbage. Happy, educated citizens don't shoot one another up for no reason.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

Well written.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

The only reason governments want to disarm citizens is so that it can treat them like garbage. Happy, educated citizens don't shoot one another up for no reason.

Yes, that's why every other country than the US is a police state where the citizens are treated like garbage. The Australians would escape their country en masse if only the US would have them.

Re: Good

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, proof that they are stuck in a failing, collapsing state with a President refusing to seat opposition members of the legislature who might flip the power balance and oust him over the fact they are having Soviet-style shortage of major staples.

Now, imagine how long Maduro might last in a Venezuela with an armed population supporting opposition parties.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

... Australians would escape their country en masse ...

To a country with the highest healthcare costs in the world, the highest education costs in the world, the biggest prison population in the world, endemic gang-warfare, little honesty in advertising, the news, the police force, institutionalized dishonesty in the courts, in the electoral process, institutionalized robbery in federal and local police, more expensive internet services, non-standardized cell phone services, and any moron can pick-up a gun and claim "self-defense". Fuck, no.

Australia suffers 'Americanization' like most countries and between our military commitments and being overrun by US corporations it's getting worse. But me and my fellow Australians won't stand for that shit, so we're better-off on this island continent where our collective yells of "Fuck, no" can still be heard.

Re:Good

[gnasher719]

"So that we can be defenseless, as the Europeans are now finding out to their chagrin?"

Fact: In the last year, 56 people in the USA were shot by children under three year old. Fact: In the UK, nobody can carry a gun legally, and ordinary police doesn't carry guns. But if you are a criminal (or not) an armed response unit will come down on you so hard you won't know what hit you. Criminals don't carry guns, because carrying a gun is so out of the ordinary that the police isn't going to stop until they have them.

Re: Good

[macsimcon6500]

But the second amendment was written at a time when we had no standing military, and a citizen militia could repel an armed government force, neither of which is true now, Once you get rid of our military and have formed militias, I'll support your interpretation, but not until then.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

As someone who works in tech in federal government, I can tell you that even the management structure I work under is ignorant of tech. They are career managers, most of whom have a project management background. They don't think things thru, they dont know what the tech does, or why it does it. They dont identify problems and then consider solutions. They get a pitch from some contract company about a shiny new gadget and hear a tall tale about how great this is going to be, and how much it's going to help, and they run off to get funding. Then and only then do they tell their technical staff about the new shiny, get annoyed when the techies look at them like they are idiots instead of jumping for joy, and then tell the techies to figure out a way to implement this three legged Frankenstein POS of a technology that's going to get in the way and cost the staff man hours of labor more than it's going to do anything else.

And the elected officials are rarely better. Often they are worse, because they have favors to repay to the lobbyists who helped fund their campaigns and are being advised by the aforementioned middle thru senior management morons. Plus, they are trying to find ways to feed soundbites to a country who is wholly relient on 220 character tweets and Facebook to become informed about public policy.

Hell, even an appreciable number of the people who create the trainwrecks of tech we debate are clueless. They honestly build this shit thinking that it's going to be so great. They think like an engineer who sees a mechanical issue, and applies a mechanical solution, without ever even considering factoring in the human element. Most of them are so socially dissociated that they lack the empathy and insight to even think thru the unintended uses of their creation.

Google has engineers build AI that has some fairly significant downside potential, which their most senior techies have warned the management about. And the management just kind blinks and stares uncomprehending, says "Um, nah, probably not" and charges forward.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

... in our worst neighborhoods ...

Are the police lenient in so-called better neighbourhoods. What makes one neighbourhood 'worse'? What about attacking entrenched attitudes that unwanted pregnancy, drug addiction, illiteracy and innumeracy, ignoring mental illnesses, are acceptable?

Onwards towards profit!

Yes, more profit for those manufacturing guns and bullets. More profit because the state allows gun manufacturers to include crime-enabling features in guns. More profit because a bunch of self-deluded morons think they can win a civil war with legalized assault weapons.

... surrender any guns and ammunition they already have ...

So who is the falsely accused meant to shoot? The police for wrongfully impeding his right to own arms? His family for being lying arseholes or, at least, gutless whingers? How exactly did the right to kill, sorry, self-defense, protect him from such fraud and dishonesty?

... mental institution for being gay ...

See above. Maybe one should be blaming the government for holding the 1870s attitude that being different is caused by some mental disease.

. You know what would be more fucked up than that?

Choosing to live with a violent person with a known agenda to murder you. What if he had bought a gun? Or worse, bought one first, since he would have known his murderous intentions long before you did?

... due to the immediate threat of violence ....

You complain about guns being taken off violent people then complain your life is in danger: Really, do you not see the double-think there?

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

...your gun policy is pretty weak for fighting terrorists

The right to bear arms is not for protecting us from terrorists or bears. It's for protecting us from stupid politicians.

Re:Good

[monkeyzoo]

Feinstein has her points that keep her in office.

Feinstein sucks. She *used* to have her points decades ago, but now she's just a crotchety old ignoramus with a hard on for a police state.

May her bill rest in peace, or rot in hell, as you prefer. ;)

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh I'm sorry, did you think Congress was made up of intelligent individuals concerned about your interests or future?! Lol. Cute.

R.I.P land of the free.

Re: Good

[drinkypoo]

But the second amendment was written at a time when we had no standing military,

Yes, that was the idea. Instead of which, we got a standing military, which the founders knew was harmful to freedom.

Once you get rid of our military and have formed militias, I'll support your interpretation, but not until then.

Once you become familiar with the history of the 2A, you'll support my interpretation. Once you become familiar with the history of standing militaries, you'll support my interpretation. Not until.

Re:Good

[drinkypoo]

Choosing to live with a violent person with a known agenda to murder you. What if he had bought a gun?

He already owned guns, stupid, including illegal ones. On a sober day he tried to give me a sawed-off pump action mossy.

You complain about guns being taken off violent people then complain your life is in danger: Really, do you not see the double-think there?

No, because I'm not an idiot or a coward. I don't fear other people being powerful. I am concerned, however, about shit laws that restrict the power I may collect to myself because the state is concerned that I might interfere with its ongoing march towards fascism. The government can choose to make a better citizen, or make a better sheep. It chose cattle, and you're cheering. But I hear bleating, on the way to shearing, and eventual mutton.

Re: Good

[Hognoxious]

Now, imagine how long Maduro might last in a Venezuela with an armed population supporting opposition parties.

About the same, if there's a reasonable proportion of the armed population who support him.

Re:Good

[Hognoxious]

And may I say what a brilliant job it's doing there.

Re:Good

[MillionthMonkey]

Law is the soup they swim in. They think anything is possible if it's backed by legal force. "We put a man on the moon, so surely we can put a man on the sun. If it's not done by sunrise, I'll cut your balls off." With computing, they're so used to being wowed by magic that they imagine they can conjure up a technological solution to anything with a gavel.

"We found this encrypted message. You wrote software able to encrypt it, so now write something to decrypt it!"

"...I can't, it's a 5000 digit pseudoprime number! It would take the lifetime of the universe to calculate it!

Oh yeah? Well not anymore because we have a COURT ORDER [waves piece of paper] that says you need to do it by the end of the week!

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

So that we can be defenseless

You're defenseless now. Owning a gun is a pretty ineffective way to change that. Just watch any cowboy movie.

Re: Good

[EmeraldBot]

But the second amendment was written at a time when we had no standing military,

Yes, that was the idea. Instead of which, we got a standing military, which the founders knew was harmful to freedom.

Once you get rid of our military and have formed militias, I'll support your interpretation, but not until then.

Once you become familiar with the history of the 2A, you'll support my interpretation. Once you become familiar with the history of standing militaries, you'll support my interpretation. Not until.

Uh, no, I wouldn't. George Washington complained that militias were inefficient and ineffective, and even though he was unable to enforce any order or structure (von Stuben, a German general, did it for him), he recognized it was not a system that would work. Later on, in the war of 1812, the Americans lost crucial battles and very important cities like New York and Boston early on, and much of it was because of how ineffective the American soldiers were. They were very poorly trained, had little professional equipment, they had no sense of group fighting or connections, and they were only interested in defending the immediate territory they owned. Possessing a gun made sense in the early days, when there was very little law or authority in most of the US, but I don't think that case stands any more. I don't mind too strongly one way or the other and I have an open mind, so long as proper training is mandatory, but your cases don't really hold up.

The military isn't oppressing your rights, politicians are.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

For every person killed by a terrorist last year in the US and Europe, 100 were killed to gun violence in the US. Even Venezuela, where the state enacted complete gun control (removing citizen ownership of all firearms), has had far less violence in its turmoil than before, with shootings not happening, even with their economy in a collapsed state. The proof is quite evident... more firearms, more deaths.

You do realise the majority of gun shootings in the US are perpetrated by African-Americans and Hispanics not law-abiding citizens. Donald Trump should deport all African-Americans along with the illegal Mexicans. Boxcars for all to the border or shipping port handling container traffic. Adios.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

isolated by two oceans
 
Um, really?
 
  even farther away than Australia is
 
Farther away from what, exactly?
 
  Also, your gun policy is pretty weak for fighting terrorists
 
It isn't meant to.
 
  they're not going to carry a pump action shot gun to the grocery store
 
Which means what, exactly?
 
  terrorists attack soft targets like schools or public squares
 
So we should make the whole country a soft target?
 
  even if you had one you'd be unable to effectively utilize it.
 
They're used daily to stop attacks. Certainly not terrorist only because of the rarity of the incidents but there are news stories every single day about gun owners using their firearms successfully on the defensive. The problem is that CNN doesn't plaster them on their headlines like they do every time someone gets shot accidentally. Furthermore, the 2nd Amendment isn't meant to be a right for singular reasons determined by you so even if you made a point worth pondering it would be irrelevant in the face of the reasoning of the founding fathers.
 
I'm seriously not seeing a valid point being made here. You were modded up by other ballistiphobic fear mongerers.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

She started off as a pimple on the ass of San Francisco and just got promoted from there. She's never been worth a fiddler's damn.

Re: Good

[Anonymous Coward]

> I don't mind too strongly one way or the other and I have an open mind, so long as proper training is mandatory, but your cases don't really hold up.

That's fine. We have a process for that -- it's the same one that created the 2nd amendment to begin with.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it was meant to be irony. Australians aren't emigrating en masse, are they?

Re:Good

[HornWumpus]

Are we on the hook for Greece's debt?

Ha ha on you euro boy.

Re:Good

[Type44Q]

they're not going to carry a pump action shot gun to the grocery store

Most certainly not. You need a hand for groceries; hence the reason semi-autos were invented.

Re:Good

[delt0r]

What the fuck are you talking about? ISIS? Your fucking serious? You mean a few disgruntle teen ages with suicidal tendencies that have killed FAR LESS than your USA school shootings is *not* leaving or even having Europe defenseless. In fact if you lived there you would know. We just get on with it and don't get all scared at every fucking shadow? And don't assume a few dickheads in the media give an accurate representation of EU any more than FOX news does for the US. And how the fuck do guns help? I mean there wouldn't be any problems in the US right because you can defend yourself, like in Boston, right. Oh wait.... Also in many EU states it is far easier to own and have firearms than in the US. Really!

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

Britain has forgotten the lesson that they taught India. XD

Re: Good

[Anonymous Coward]

Who do you think enforces the politicians will? The purpose of a standing military is to protect the power of the politicians. That is why bootcamp uses every known brainwashing technique to make you follow orders without question. It isn't in the interest of politicians to have a military that will question your motives when they tell them to attack their fellow citizens for peaceful protest.

Re: Good

[Anonymous Coward]

But the second amendment was written at a time when we had no standing military, and a citizen militia could repel an armed government force, neither of which is true now. Once you get rid of our military and have formed militias, I'll support your interpretation, but not until then.

Talk to people in the military - they're human beings too, you might learn something from them. They'll certainly be happy to help fill in some of gaps in your education. You might even make some new friends.

You'll find out the majority are strong supporters of the 2nd Amendment. They'll also will be happy to explain that the crews of tanks and airplanes are quite vulnerable to hand-held firearms before they get into their vehicles. Flak jackets don't stop handgun bullets, let alone those fired by a rifle.

And the majority of the military would oppose illegal orders to open fire on civilians, even if it required using force against the relatively few sociopaths in uniform. They understand full well their oaths require them to uphold the Constitution, not the orders of a government that is in violation of that Constitution. They also tend to be more familiar with the Nuremberg Precedent than the average civilian, and how it governs their behavior - the USA would benefit if the average lawyer or law enforcement officer had the same understanding of how to act in the face of illegal laws and precedents.

Now if they move to automated robot combatants, I'd start to worry ...

A citizen militia can repel an armed governmental force, and many have in the past century under a wide variety of circumstances. For example, an elite German paratrooper battalion was stopped from capturing the government of Norway by a Norwegian gun club (guided by a military officer) during WW2 (1940). Many other examples can be found, such as the defeat of US Special Forces by militia in Africa (1993).

There was, by the way, a standing military in 1787 when the second amendment was written, in fact there were many of them: they were organized at the state and local levels. There was ALSO a federal standing military in 1787: Congress issued a law in 1784 forming the First American Regiment, and soon after organized an artillery force at West Point, both of which have continued in one form or another to this day.

Gun control in the USA is primarily a tool for unethical politicians to buy votes from the ignorant.

Re: Good

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh, no, I wouldn't. George Washington complained that militias were inefficient and ineffective, and even though he was unable to enforce any order or structure (von Stuben, a German general, did it for him), he recognized it was not a system that would work. Later on, in the war of 1812, the Americans lost crucial battles and very important cities like New York and Boston early on, and much of it was because of how ineffective the American soldiers were.

The Americans also won crucial battles, such as the battles of Bennington and Saratoga (which took place a few months before von Stuben came over). These were won by primarily militia forces, with some professional military leadership. The victories at Trenton and Princeton were also won just over a month before von Stuben started training the Army.

Some of the militia forces (for example Marion's Men, Morgen's Riflemen) were particularly effective.

The King's Mountain campaign is another great example of a militia success.

By the way, the Americans didn't lose Boston: they drove the British out, using guns captured at Ft. Ticonderoga by Ethan Allen's militia, and they kept Boston for the rest of the war. The professional British Army, incidentally, declined to engage the militia forces at Boston (organized to protect the guns on Dorchester Heights), having learned a valuable lesson about how dangerous such forces could be from the Battle of Breed's Hill (which the British won, at terrible cost), and instead sailed away from the city, never to return.

The American militias were often really good, because they had a core of folks with military experience, and because folks were used to fending for themselves in a land that was still mostly frontier, with sometimes hostile natives, and hardly any official military or police presence.

There's no denying that a professional military force has some advantages. There are certain missions that amateurs have trouble accomplishing. There's also no denying that amateurs have done well in a whole host of circumstances, especially if they have a few professionals in critical positions to provide advice, training, and leadership.

In the 20th Century, there were countless examples of this, such as the partisans in the former Soviet Union (drawn from many different peoples, not just Russians), and in Poland, both fighting the Germans. The Russians got to experience this from the other end in Afghanistan. You'll also find examples in Africa and South America. Study some more military history with an open mind.

Incidentally, being able to provide that kind of training is one of the primary missions of the Green Berets.

A lot of Washington's problems were due to logistics failures, which could be traced directly back to mismanagement and corruption by the Continental Congress. An astute politician, he couldn't say this directly, of course, so he had to complain about the militias. This got him more professional officers who in turn could speak to Congress, able to say the things that needed to be said "unofficially", without alienating the Congress from Washington or publicly embarrassing anyone. This was at least as important as the actual training provided.

The logistics problems, of course, wouldn't be completely solved for a long time, and are a major headache even today, but they did get much better (with considerable aid from France).

I don't mind too strongly one way or the other and I have an open mind, so long as proper training is mandatory, but your cases don't really hold up.

Any responsible gun owner would agree with the proper training part, and even the mandatory part, but you'll get lots of people quibbling over the government having to sign off on it. The power to license can become the power to destroy, if unethical politicians think they can advance their careers accordingly.

Remove Feinstein

[Anonymous Coward]

Senator Dianne Feinstein is incompetent!

Re:Remove Feinstein

[Anonymous Coward]

Not at all. (((Diane Feinstein))) knows exactly what she's doing.

real reason the bill was dropped

[Anonymous Coward]

You had to read all the way to the last sentence of the article to get to the actual reason:

They also said there was reluctance to take on the tech industry in an election year.

Re:real reason the bill was dropped

[Rob Lister]

And perhaps the unspoken reason is that there are enough politicians that fear their own vulnerability with back doors. It's a two-way street.

Fuck Burr

[cosm]

I live and work in the Research Triangle Park area of North Carolina, and Burr can kiss my ass. Any re-election signs this cocksucker puts up will be greeted by a big go fuck yourself. He's a pandering plutocrat that got elected by well meaning conservative constituents and sold himself out. Posting not-anonymously because fuck you NSA and your all seeing eye bullshit. Let's talk assholes. Add some more shit to my FBI file for all I care. Fuckers...
USA USA USA!!!

Dead. It's over. Fin.

[Iamthecheese]

...until the next version comes out next year or a rubber stamping judge approves a new abuse of the Patriot act. These come up year after year until the people get tired of protesting the same bill every fucking year, then Congress passes a version thereof. Why? Why do we keep electing the same scum year after year? What is wrong with the American voter?

Re:Dead. It's over. Fin.

[drinkypoo]

Why do we keep electing the same scum year after year? What is wrong with the American voter?

Feinstein's opposition in particular is usually some kind of special scum, probably on the premise that only scum can unseat scum. I vote against her every time I vote anyway.

Re:Dead. It's over. Fin.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is it that Evil gets do-over after do-over until they get their way? And once they get their way, it's almost impossible for Good to change it?

Don't get me wrong.

[Endloser]

I legitimately believe that government organizations want to monitor my conversations for security. However I don't believe it's for MY security.

Time to recall Feinstein, CA

[He Who Has No Name]

She's corrupt and senile and completely off in la-la land. Time for her to retire somewhere she can yell at clouds and grumble about not being able to divert federal contracts to her husband or wipe her ass with the Bill of Rights anymore.

Re:Time to recall Feinstein, CA

[psmoot]

Don't blame me, I've never voted for her.

The recurring problem

[Mal-2]

The recurring problem is that this can be shot down this year, and next year, and the year after that... but they only have to succeed once, and then we're all stuck with it. Add to that the fact that they can just tack it on to a budget bill and seriously, how are we supposed to stop these things from happening? The attack mode on any Congressman who votes against the budget bill is incredibly scathing, no matter what their justification for doing so, and again, that little problem remains that freedom has to win every battle, while the police state only has to win one.

Re:The recurring problem

[Virtucon]

which is why we need to simplify legislation in general to say 50 pages max. No more 2000+ page pieces of shit that nobody can understand with buried crap that slips by without review. These fucking idiots in Congress don't read legislation anyway but if it's at least small enough they can't sneak shit like this onto a bill.

Re:The recurring problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Which is why, to prevent the Police State, you have to throw THE STATE out.
You don't need a STATE to run your lives as independant free peoples.
You want firetrucks and roads and good health care???
No problem.
Reach in your pocket and give money for that directly to those causes.
There's ZERO difference except there's...
NO corrupt Govt in the middle as taxing middlemen forcing you to do all the stupid shit they dream up to stuff the coffers of their favorite lobbyists... all the while btw, giving you firetrucks so badly maintained they crash, roads full of potholes mad out of money sucking blacktop instead of one time concrete for 50 years, and health care that doubled your costs in the last five years alone.

Re:The recurring problem

[wierd_w]

I see you are observing the "dildo legislation" I have harped about in the past.

https://yro.slashdot.org/comme...

https://yro.slashdot.org/comme...

Well, here it is, a few years later-- and we have a dildo up all our collective asses (TPP), because after 4 consecutive attempts and being told no each and every time, they decided behind closed doors that we really meant yes, and just jammed it in without even asking.

Expect the same kind of shit with Feinstein and her fetish for backdooring everything and everyone-- for our own safety, of course.

If not her, some other tool with a vested interest in pornoscopes, panopticon surveilance, secret courts and secret rulings, and of course, secret databases that you arent allowed to ask if your data is on file in.

because all that is to keep you safe, citizen! It has nothing whatsoever with the raging hardon we in the panopticon have when we think about how we can charge you with a made up crime and have it stick, all while eating popcorn watching you go about your life 24/7, and snickering about all those "private" things you do, buy, and say online.

Nothing whatsoever. it's all about your safety. Yes. Your safety. Now, please stand in front of the security device...

Oh yes. That's it. Lean a little more to the right. Oh yeah...Mmm.. Good citizen, Very good.

Re:The recurring problem

[Anonymous Coward]

So Roman Mir has a redneck cousin. Who'd've thought...?

Re: The recurring problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Laughable comment. Not even die hard libertarians believe in this crap. Even them believe in a night watchers state. You need police, fire department and emergency services. You also probably needs a defence. These things needs to be jointly financed by everyone. Hence you need taxes. Your suggestion is pure fantasies. It would only mean that people wouldn't pay for these basic necessities for a society.

Re:The recurring problem

[Rockoon]

which is why we need to simplify legislation in general to say 50 pages max.

And require that all legislation to have a sunset provision with a maximum of 4 years before needing to be re-voted on.

Re: The recurring problem

[macsimcon6500]

The larger problem is Americans don't vote in numbers high enough to retain control of their government, as they do in Europe or Australia. Also, Americans are astonishingly ignorant, so it makes us easy to manipulate. I don't see how we fix this country until we fix these two problems.

Works for me

[93 Escort Wagon]

If Congress was going to spend what little common sense it possesses on something - this was a good choice.

It is not dead

[fustakrakich]

It's just resting

It is a zombie bill that will never die. In fact, SCO will die first.

Re:It is not dead

[Virtucon]

SCO, the zombie apocalypse of companies.

Re:It is not dead

[Opportunist]

At first I thought you're talking about Feinstein.

What Difference Does It Make?

[zenlessyank]

They can unencrypt your shit anyways. They will do what they want anyways. Mooo

Re:What Difference Does It Make?

[fustakrakich]

Yes, we know that, but in an election year appearances do matter, and their effectiveness cannot be denied.

Re:What Difference Does It Make?

[zenlessyank]

And it would appear we have two fecal piles to choose from that will do nothing but let the status quo move along as usual.

Re:What Difference Does It Make?

[fustakrakich]

:-) Things aren't always as they appear. There are more than two choices, and the chances of winning are determined by the voters, not the money, or anything else.

What debate?

[Snotnose]

It was extremely stupid legislation by smart people who tend to be driven more by knee jerk reactions than measured thought. Or is that potential campaign contributions over measured thought, I've kinda lost track by now.

Re:What debate?

[Anonymous Coward]

Stop calling Dianne Feinstein smart. She is anything but. Case in point: She introduced this legislation thinking it was a good idea or that she had the slightest idea what she was talking about at the time. She didn't.

Re:What debate?

[tom229]

The debate over whether, with a warrant, asking tech companies to break into their devices is covered by the 4th amendment or is something new. What the article above is talking about I have no idea. This bill, and this debate, has nothing to do with encryption or government backdoors. Before you respond, I'd encourage you, and everyone in this thread, to actually read it.

Re: Again, Republican obstructionism keeps...

[Anonymous Coward]

Too bad people are so stupid that they keep electing them despite the fact that they stand in the way of all progress.

Re: Again, Republican obstructionism keeps...

[Anonymous Coward]

And they also made fun of Boxer for her statement in support of the FBI against Apple. She was trying to help the FBI.

Re: Again, Republican obstructionism keeps...

[Anonymous Coward]

The teapublicans were supporting terrorism in that case.

Re: Again, Republican obstructionism keeps...

[Anonymous Coward]

She didn't completely understand the issue so it was disingenuous for the republicans to attack her on that.

Re:Poop in your ear

[Anonymous Coward]

That Samori!

Hedged bet

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems Donald Trump has a decent enough shot a winning the white house that these chickenshiat senators are hedging their bets knowing they won't have to deal with any blowback when Trump signs an executive order to enact these same provisions. This is not the will of the people in action, this is purposeful inaction by elected congress-critters to avoid jeopardizing their prospects to be re-elected.

Re:Again, Republican obstructionism keeps...

[Applehu Akbar]

congress from doing their just. They hate Feinstein despite how much she has done for the people, so they irrationally stand against everything she does.

You said it. Hating Feinstein and all she stands for is something in which we of the dark party take great pride.

Im sure it would work

[Anonymous Coward]

If we were to allow backdoors and anything else the US government wants i'm sure the Terrorist attacks would stop. Is this an offer we cant refuse... but haven't really figured that out yet.

Re:Im sure it would work

[Opportunist]

If you build in backdoors into encryption, you can be certain that the terrorists will have the key before the year is over.

Irrational?

[Anonymous Coward]

We hate Feinstein because she's a senile old hypocritical bitch whose past service does not excuse her horrific abuses of the public's trust.

Re:Irrational?

[HornWumpus]

What past service? She's always been useless.

Authors were too stupid to make it workable

[Anonymous Coward]

I read the bill. Contradictory, and technical not feasible without outlawing computer security in America, and probably soon its puppet regimes, when one of the dodgy trade bills that extend American corporate dictatorship to other parts of the world is sneaked by.

Re:Again, Republican obstructionism keeps...

[drinkypoo]

They hate Feinstein despite how much she has done for the people

Feinstein has done a lot for Feinstein; her financials are the size of a phone book. But for the people? Poppycock. She's done a lot to the people, mind you. She vetoed domestic partner legislation in 1982, proposed banning handguns in SF in 1984 so that only she and her cronies could carry them, was fined $190,000 for failure to properly report campaign contributions in 1992, voted for the extension of the PATRIOT ACT and the FISA provisions, cosponsored PIPA, labeled Edward Snowden a traitor after his leaks went public, introduced the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, was the only Democrat who joined a minority of Republicans in voting against a measure designed to prevent federal interference with states' medical marijuana laws, and was one of sixteen Democratic female senators to sign a letter, on October 20, 2013, endorsing Hillary Clinton to be the Democratic nominee.

Feinstein is, in fact, human fucking garbage, who has done more to harm the people than most politicians have managed.

backdoor

[Anonymous Coward]

legislators do love themselves some backdoor action

because if you knew

[Anonymous Coward]

while law enforcement agencies believe they need to monitor phone calls, emails, text messages and encrypted data in general for security purposes.

US gov gets paid tax payer dollars.
US gov serves own agenda with tax payer dollars, not tax payers' agenda.
US gov distributes false narrative that they are trying to protect you from "terrorists" while *they* scare you. "spooks" means what? look it up.

No politician wants to go against what their "spook" handlers demand because they are scared to die mysteriously in the night.

Big game of hide and seek. Spooks go to Hell and they are aware of this now. Daily. Literal Hell. God is tired of His planet being lied to en masse by pussy ass mother fuckers hiding in the bushes. Jesus is coming SOON.

Dig a big fucking tomb.

There is no "government only" backdoor

[Opportunist]

At the very least not one where only YOUR government will have the key to that backdoor. We're talking about something here that is valuable. James-Bond-Evil-Genius-Wants-To-Have-It valuable. Every government on this planet would want to have it. We're talking about nothing short of being able to decrypt ALL secret communication. From government secrets to trade secrets. Every single government on this planet will be after those keys. And they have deep pockets to bribe those who have them.

Not to mention that no company on this planet could sensibly stay within the jurisdiction of a government issuing such a law. Let alone anyone who actually creates encryption schemes. If you're an encryption company, you CANNOT stay within the borders of a government making such a law, for nobody in their sane mind would keep buying your broken-by-design encryption software.

Re: There is no "government only" backdoor

[macsimcon6500]

Anyone with access to such keys would be subject to blackmail, extortion, and murder. And do you think other governments are just going to sit by while the U.S. holds the only decryption key? They will pass their own back door legislation, so every time I send an email with S/MIME it's encrypted to more than 200 state-owned keys, any one of which could be compromised at any time to decrypt my message.

Re:There is no "government only" backdoor

[tom229]

Is that what the bill was about? Really? Did you even read it? Assumption is the mother of all fuckups you know.

Re:There is no "government only" backdoor

[Opportunist]

Oh, I'm sorry, did they change the wording from the last 10 times they tried to push that bullshit?

Color me surprised, they actually learned listened and learned? Sorry, I honestly didn't deem this possible.

Re:There is no "government only" backdoor

[tom229]

I'm not sure what version of the bill you're angry about. The only one I've seen mentions nothing about backdoors, or encryption. In fact, it explicitly states:

Nothing in this Act may be construed to authorize any government officer to require or prohibit any specific design or operating system to be adopted by any covered entity.

You've swallowed the hyperbole, like so many. There is a very disturbing misinformation campaign surrounding this whole Apple business. You'd be wise to make no assumptions and verify everything. And please, pass it along. The "good guys" usually aren't who they appear to be, and it's always the punch you don't see coming that gets you.

Re:There is no "government only" backdoor

[Opportunist]

You mean like a law proposal being tossed into the voting bin again and again 'til finally at some point nobody's looking and it gets approved?

Re:There is no "government only" backdoor

[LiENUS]

I'm not sure what version of the bill you're angry about. The only one I've seen mentions nothing about backdoors, or encryption. In fact, it explicitly states:

That line just means that they don't have to build in a backdoor to the governments specifications. It doesn't mean that they don't have to put in a backdoor.

(2), a covered entity that receives a court order from
8 a government for information or data shall—
9 (A) provide such information or data to
10 such government in an intelligible format; or
11 (B) provide such technical assistance as is
12 necessary to obtain such information or data in
13 an intelligible format or to achieve the purpose
14 of the court order.

How would a covered entity provide the information in an intelligible format without a backdoor?
They must provide the data in an intelligible format or provide technical assistance master key) to the government to obtain the information in an intelligible format. That's a backdoor.

Re:There is no "government only" backdoor

[tom229]

OK, so the government cant tell you how to design your products. You don't deny that. Now I design a phone that is secured with 256 bit encryption, strong ciphers, and forces strong password (alpha numeric 8 digit). I can't break this, you can't break this, no one can. It's math. How is the government going to take me to court and sue me over "shall" when they explicitly state they can't define how I design my software? My software is unbreakable. They can certainly pay me to try to brute force it (the bill also mandates reasonable compensation) but it will take decades, or longer.

Now let's look at a system like Apples on the iPhone. They employ pretty much the same strategy as me except they allow very weak passwords: 4 digit numeric. To secure these weak passwords they use software restrictions that artifically delay the decryption interval based on the number of failed passwords entered. They use a secure bootloader so only their software can be loaded, but they can still override their artificial restrictions at their leisure. This is, in effect, and backdoor Apple has built into their system by lulling users into using weak passwords in the name of convenience. It's a vulnerability they can exploit at their leisure. Should law enforcement be able to use willingly imposed vulnerabilities by manufacturers with with valid warrant? That is the argument and I'm happy to have that debate.

This should also give you some idea of the root of misinformation campaign (hint: the company that markets themselves as the good guys, never actually is).

Re:There is no "government only" backdoor

[tom229]

That's twice now you've resorted to angry hyperbole while addressing nothing of what I've said. You've clearly made up your mind on emotion rather than objective analysis of evidence. I'll just assume victory and move on now.

Re:There is no "government only" backdoor

[Opportunist]

Safe journey.

Re:There is no "government only" backdoor

[LiENUS]

Nothing in this Act may be construed to authorize any government officer to require or prohibit any specific design or operating system to be adopted by any covered entity.

Pay attention to the bolded part. It doesn't require a specific design but it does require you to be able to provide it in an intelligible format. A warrant is going to specify a time frame, fail to do it and you run afoul of the law and face contempt of court. It's pretty easy to read the law.

Re:There is no "government only" backdoor

[LiENUS]

Let's take it a step further. What does Dianne Feinstein say about this bill?
Source: http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=EA927EA1-E098-4E62-8E61-DF55CBAC1649/

The government cannot require or prohibit any specific design or operating system for any covered entity to use in complying with a court order.

She explicitely says the restriction you refer to only refers to the system used in complying with a court order. Not that you can avoid complying with it if your encryption doesn't allow you to, but that

Covered entities are responsible only for the information or data that they (or another party on their behalf) have made unintelligible.

they just can't be told how they have to comply.

Pretty simple, from the words of dianne herself. Or are you going to call her a liar about her own bill as well?

Re:There is no "government only" backdoor

[tom229]

Thanks for the link. I'll admit there is one part of the bill that I must have initially glossed over that is quite troubling:

Certain communication service providers that distribute licenses for a covered entity’s products and services also must ensure that these products and services are capable of providing information or data in an intelligible format.

This is much more troubling as it would suggest telecoms can't sell devices that use strong encryption. While this is still far from mandating a government only backdoor, if the intent of the bill is to effectively outlaw strong encryption I would vehemently oppose it. This would be a blatent violation of the right to free speech and the 4th amendment.

I will submit that you are right, this bill, in its current form, sucks, and should never be passed.

Re: Again, Republican obstructionism keeps...

[macsimcon6500]

She sure is...but maybe that's because so many of those positions she took were Republican positions. Just like Hillary and Obama, Feinstein is a moderate Republican, and not an actual Democrat.

Wow. What a summary.

[tom229]

U.S. lawmakers pledged to require technology companies to give law enforcement agencies a "back door" to encrypted communications and electronic devices.

I curious whether any of these tech "news" sites actually read the bill or even understand its intention beyond the hyperbole. The above would suggest they don't. Here's an excerpt from the actual bill:

to uphold both the rule of law and protect the interests and security of the United States, all persons receiving an authorized judicial order for information or data must provide, in a timely manner, responsive, intelligible information or data, or appropriate technical assistance to obtain such information or data; [...] Nothing in this Act may be construed to authorize any government officer to require or prohibit any specific design or operating system to be adopted by any covered entity.

This bill was about establishing a legal framework to get tech companies to follow court orders. It has nothing to do with encryption. The bill even explicitly states they cannot mandate that software be designed a certain way. So design your products so they are secured in a decentralized way so even you can't get into them and you're fine. Design your products so theyre breakable and highly centralized like Apple and you might have to share the punch. This is completely reasonable. If breaking into iphones is possible, why should apple have the exclusive privilege to do so? And why all the misinformation and hyperbole? This has all been very very strange. It screams of an Apple propaganda campaign more than any real reasoned debate over what will be an important issue in the future.

Re:Wow. What a summary.

[LiENUS]

This bill was about establishing a legal framework to get tech companies to follow court orders. It has nothing to do with encryption. The bill even explicitly states they cannot mandate that software be designed a certain way. So design your products so they are secured in a decentralized way so even you can't get into them and you're fine. Design your products so theyre breakable and highly centralized like Apple and you might have to share the punch. This is completely reasonable. If breaking into iphones is possible, why should apple have the exclusive privilege to do so? And why all the misinformation and hyperbole? This has all been very very strange. It screams of an Apple propaganda campaign more than any real reasoned debate over what will be an important issue in the future.

The bill clearly says a covered entity receiving a court order shall (ust) provide such information or data to the government in an intelligible format; or provide such technical assistance as is necescary to obtain such information or data in an intelligible format to achieve the purpose of the court order.

(2), a covered entity that receives a court order from
8 a government for information or data shall—
9 (A) provide such information or data to
10 such government in an intelligible format; or
11 (B) provide such technical assistance as is
12 necessary to obtain such information or data in
13 an intelligible format or to achieve the purpose
14 of the court order.

Note, nowhere does it say that they shall do it if possible. It says absolutely they shall provide that information or assistance.
That would absolutely require a backdoor. Try reading the actual bill. It implicitly requires a backdoor

Re:Wow. What a summary.

[tom229]

I have read it. Did you even ready my comment? Your concern over the implications of "shall" a surely addressed later in the bill.

Nothing in this Act may be construed to authorize any government officer to require or prohibit any specific design or operating system to be adopted by any covered entity.

Nothing in this act is surely clearer language than "shall". If your argument is an entity could be sued for not adhering to the "shall", this clause specifically forbidding a "specific design or operating system be adopted" would surely take precedence over any subtle implications you think "shall" would have. This clause is actually explicit, whereas the term "shall" certainly is not. The backdoor rhetoric is clearly propaganda. If you want to have the opinion the government is bad, you can't be just a bad / worse than them to push it

Re:Wow. What a summary.

[Anonymous Coward]

You're a fool. You focused on an unimportant point: the specific design. The critical point is the general requirement that the covered entity have the ability to provide the information or data in an intelligible (unencrypted) form, and this necessarily requires a backdoor. The challenge for you is to imagine an implementation meeting the stated requirement which does not constitute a "backdoor". I think it is fair to say that providing a covered entity with the keys to access a user's data is a "backdoor". If you disagree, then be aware that this is the real point of your disagreement with the "backdoor rhetoric", and that sane people know that being compelled to provide others with your private keys is the ultimate backdoor.

Re: Again, Republican obstructionism keeps...

[drinkypoo]

She sure is...but maybe that's because so many of those positions she took were Republican positions. Just like Hillary and Obama, Feinstein is a moderate Republican,

Just like most so-called Democrats, you mean.

It will be back

[Anonymous Coward]

It will reappear as an amendment slipped into a bill that is too important to fail.

Re:Again, Republican obstructionism keeps...

[Anonymous Coward]

Beautiful trolling. Using their own words in a way that they completely hate to make a point about how stupid their words actually are.

Too bad they are so stupid they don't understand your point and voted you down and all the comments show they don't get it. I personally applaud you for your wit! You force them to admit if they get their way every time they lose far worse.

I'm sure there's a punchline for this

[Hognoxious]

Most rednecks have redneck cousins. Most rednecks have redneck spouses.

Never trust someone with the last name Feinstein

[Anonymous Coward]

They are all greedy treasonous Jews.

Pump action shotgun IS one-handed operable!

[Anonymous Coward]

Pump action shotgun IS one-handed operable!

Jeez, don't you watch any of the training films? Responsible gun owner indeed.

I suggest you start with the Terminator documentaries.

They'll Be Back

[Anonymous Coward]

They always come back.

Dear Government...

[martinfb]

Dear Government: Please GET IT THROUGH YOUR THICK, NARCISSISTIC HEADS: STOP giving terrorists reason for terror. Police Corporations for THEIR wrongs, which cause all but the shareholders to hate them. DO YOUR JOB RIGHT and you will not need to become 'Big Brother'; you will not need to hack into anyones' anything - phone, PC, PDA, whatever.