SAFE rewritten to be more law-enforcement friendly

Alex Bischoff writes "According to this article, SAFE (the Security and Freedom through Encryption act) has been rewritten to be more law enforcement friendly. 'The House Armed Services Committee voted 47-6 Wednesday to replace an industry-endorsed encryption bill with substitute legislation drafted by law enforcement advocates.' " And for once, it looked like the US Gov't was going to get a /clue/ about crypto.

Comments

Re:They do have a clue

[DonkPunch]

It has been mentioned already by two other posters, but I have to chime in.

Yes, I also have a problem with the "rights given to us by our government" phrase in your post. It seems like a pretty small thing, but I find it indicative of an attitude in the U.S. which is starting to bother me.

I don't believe that the current seperation of government from "the people" is what was originally intended for the United States. The Constitution starts with, "We, the people", not "We, the Government of the United States of America". The original goal was for government to be controlled by the people, not the other way around.

The Constitution enumerates what the branches of government may/should do. In effect, it is a document in which the people grant rights to the government, NOT the other way around. IMO, American citizens have forgotten this fact.

There were members of the constitutional convention who were against adding the Bill of Rights. Their argument was that enumeration of specific rights would lead to the government infringing on any rights which were NOT specifically mentioned. 200+ years later, I think they had a good point.

The assumption that anything not mentioned is, by default, outside the domain of federal government is long lost. Today, when something happens, we ask, "What will the [federal] government do about it?"

/* Not a lawyer. Just a guy with a deep interest in the U.S. Constitution. */