Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by BeauHD on from the lack-of-consensus dept.

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.

68 of 123 comments (clear)

  1. Good by MAXOMENOS · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It was stupid legislation crafted by profoundly ignorant people.

    --
    Finding God in a Dog
    1. Re:Good by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:Good by axewolf · · Score: 1

      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.

    3. Re:Good by bug_hunter · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      It's turtles all the way down.
    4. Re:Good by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    5. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      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.

    6. Re:Good by MrKaos · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    7. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      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

    8. Re:Good by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "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.

    9. Re:Good by bug_hunter · · Score: 1

      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".

      --
      It's turtles all the way down.
    10. Re:Good by EmeraldBot · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "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.

      --
      "Set a man a fire, he'll be warm for the rest of the night. Set a man afire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life."
    11. Re:Good by drinkypoo · · Score: 1, Insightful

      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.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    12. Re:Good by gnasher719 · · Score: 1

      "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.

    13. Re: Good by macsimcon6500 · · Score: 1

      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.

    14. Re:Good by monkeyzoo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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. ;)

    15. Re: Good by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    16. Re:Good by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    17. Re: Good by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    18. Re:Good by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

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

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    19. Re:Good by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 1

      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!

    20. Re: Good by EmeraldBot · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      "Set a man a fire, he'll be warm for the rest of the night. Set a man afire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life."
    21. Re:Good by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Are we on the hook for Greece's debt?

      Ha ha on you euro boy.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    22. Re:Good by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      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.

    23. Re:Good by delt0r · · Score: 1

      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!

      --
      If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
  2. real reason the bill was dropped by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:real reason the bill was dropped by Rob+Lister · · Score: 1

      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.

  3. Don't get me wrong. by Endloser · · Score: 1

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

  4. Time to recall Feinstein, CA by He+Who+Has+No+Name · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Time to recall Feinstein, CA by psmoot · · Score: 1

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

  5. The recurring problem by Mal-2 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
    1. Re:The recurring problem by Virtucon · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
    2. Re:The recurring problem by wierd_w · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      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.

    3. Re:The recurring problem by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    4. Re: The recurring problem by macsimcon6500 · · Score: 2

      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.

  6. Works for me by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

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

    --
    #DeleteChrome
  7. It is not dead by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

    It's just resting

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

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    1. Re:It is not dead by Virtucon · · Score: 1

      SCO, the zombie apocalypse of companies.

      --
      Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
    2. Re:It is not dead by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      At first I thought you're talking about Feinstein.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  8. What debate? by Snotnose · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:What debate? by tom229 · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
  9. Re:Dead. It's over. Fin. by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

    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.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  10. Re:Dead. It's over. Fin. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    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?

  11. Re:Again, Republican obstructionism keeps... by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

    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.

  12. Re:What Difference Does It Make? by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

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

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  13. Re:Again, Republican obstructionism keeps... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    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.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  14. There is no "government only" backdoor by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    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.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re: There is no "government only" backdoor by macsimcon6500 · · Score: 1

      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.

    2. Re:There is no "government only" backdoor by tom229 · · Score: 1

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

      --
      If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
    3. Re:There is no "government only" backdoor by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    4. Re:There is no "government only" backdoor by tom229 · · Score: 1
      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.

      --
      If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
    5. Re:There is no "government only" backdoor by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      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?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    6. Re:There is no "government only" backdoor by LiENUS · · Score: 1

      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.

    7. Re:There is no "government only" backdoor by tom229 · · Score: 1

      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).

      --
      If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
    8. Re:There is no "government only" backdoor by tom229 · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
    9. Re:There is no "government only" backdoor by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Safe journey.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    10. Re:There is no "government only" backdoor by LiENUS · · Score: 1

      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.

    11. Re:There is no "government only" backdoor by LiENUS · · Score: 1

      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?

    12. Re:There is no "government only" backdoor by tom229 · · Score: 1
      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.

      --
      If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
  15. Re:Im sure it would work by Opportunist · · Score: 1

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

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  16. Re: Again, Republican obstructionism keeps... by macsimcon6500 · · Score: 1

    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.

  17. Re: Again, Republican obstructionism keeps... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    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.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  18. I'm sure there's a punchline for this by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

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

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  19. Re:What Difference Does It Make? by zenlessyank · · Score: 1

    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.

  20. Re:What Difference Does It Make? by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

    :-) 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.

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  21. Re:Irrational? by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

    What past service? She's always been useless.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  22. Re:Wow. What a summary. by LiENUS · · Score: 1

    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

  23. Re:Wow. What a summary. by tom229 · · Score: 1
    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

    --
    If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
  24. Dear Government... by martinfb · · Score: 1

    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.

    --


    Self-importance and self-indulgence is the root of ALL evil.