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

[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

[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

[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

[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. ;)

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.

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.

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.