Leak of Senate encryption bill prompts swift backlash

[WhiteTara]

Source: Reuters

Security researchers and civil liberties advocates on Friday condemned draft legislation leaked from the U.S. Senate that would let judges order technology companies to assist law enforcement agencies in breaking into encrypted data.

The long-awaited bill is emerging just as the U.S. Justice Department redoubles its efforts to use the courts to force Apple to help unlock encrypted iPhones.

The Senate proposal is an attempt to resolve long-standing disagreements between the technology community, which believes strong encryption is essential to keep hackers and others from disrupting the Internet, and law enforcement officials worried about being unable to pry open encrypted devices and communications of criminal suspects.

But the draft bill, leaked online Thursday evening, was planned as an overly vague measure that added up to a ban on strong encryption.

Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-encryption-legislation-idUSKCN0X52CG

[LiberalArkie]

1. Another wonderful freedom bill by Feinstein.

I guess I need this ----->>

[Scuba]

4. DiFi is the kind of "Democrat" we really don't need/want in our big tent.

[phazed0]

2. Shredding the 4th amendment.. again..

WTF do we even have the Constitution for if nobody is going to follow it.

Betcha Hillary is ON BOARD with this.


Absolute worst decision in a decade if this passes.

[cstanleytech]

3. No, its only a 4th amendment violation if they wouldnt have to get a court order.

Might be a 1st amendment one though if its compelling companies to write code that essentially breaks their products..........ya for killing exports of american made goods!!!!

[phazed0]

6. I see your point about the court order, but I would counter with..

[They] have made it almost impossible to be secure in your documents without encryption and now they push to get rid of that (Which is a fools errand anyways).

Someone needs to clue them in on the fact that encryption can be carried out in many ways - there is no set, define, cut and dry 'encryption'. Next thing you know they will be knocking on doors because you're using a non-state authorized method of encryption. A bit dramatic, I know.

[cstanleytech]

11. Thats just it though you dont have a constitutional write to encryption, you do however

a right to force the government to get a warrant first if it wants to search through your documents.
Course what this law would do is it would essentially break encryption itself not to mention US Law stops at the borders so anyone from another country could use an unbroken encryption and the FBI would be SOL anyway.

[phazed0]

12. You're right.. it's just fundamentally wrong and short sighted, IMO

But I guess it's true what they say, everyone's got an opinion, right!?

[cstanleytech]

13. "it's just fundamentally wrong and short sighted" Not to mention a complete waste of time. nt

[NutmegYankee]

18. Actually you do have a right to write to encryption.

The right to free speech.

It would be like writing your papers/diary to a new language that no one else understood. The papers can be seized with a warrant, but no one else would understand them. And the writer cannot be compelled to translate them because of the fifth Amendment right against self incrimination.

[cstanleytech]

19. Nope, you dont. You can of course secure the documents but if served a warrant you are

required to obey it and unlock them.
Of course where the tricky part comes in is that it could be considered an act of self incrimination if your claim the device isnt yours and if you provide the password it then could be be used to incriminate yourself which then might be a violation of the fifth amendment.

[NutmegYankee]

21. Wrong.

Several courts have held that being required to provide a passcode is a violation of the 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination. The passcode is protected because it is in your head and you have to speak or write it for others to use it. It's not like a physical key that a judge can demand you produce.

[cstanleytech]

23. Thank you for repeating the 5th amendment problems that I already mentioned.

[NutmegYankee]

24. I stated the 5th Amendment issue in my first post.

You disagreed.

[cstanleytech]

25. No, I was pointing out the 4th amendment issues there which require the government to get a warrant

and which people are obliged to obey however in the case a phone or computer thats encrypted you then also run into 5th amendment issues if you try to get the person to reveal the password because revealing that they know it or forcing them to enter it themselves can be used to incriminate them or in a nutshell when it comes to dealing with encryption its a mess.

[NutmegYankee]

26. Then we are in violent agreement.

I also pointed out that writing in encryption (making the actual encrypted product) can be covered under the First Amendment.

[cstanleytech]

28. Writing it and using it are two different things, writing a program is usually protected speech

but using a program someone wrote isnt.

[EdwardBernays]

5. Honestly

If I was Apple - or any number of tech companies - I'd strongly consider moving my entire business elsewhere.

This sort of blackmail shouldn't be accepted.

[dorkzilla]

8. I hear Ireland is a nice option! nt

[EdwardBernays]

9. Sure

All their unpaid tax money is here already!

[dorkzilla]

10. 'zactly. Really a no-brainer

[PatV]

7. So the first thing I think of when I see Fienstein's name on a bill is "I wonder how she or her

husband are going to make bank on this bill?"

Second thought is "Can this bill be any worse than it is?" The answer is a resounding NO!

[shanti]

14. Difi

She needs to be primaried, stat!

[surrealAmerican]

15. If only they had encrypted it, maybe it wouldn't have leaked.

There's some serious irony here.

[WhiteTara]

16. good one!

[GreatGazoo]

17. won't that help foreign companies who are not subject to US laws

and hurt US based companies who are?

[cstanleytech]

20. Essentially, yes and its also kinda pointless as people from a foreign country are not obliged

to use a device that the FBI has a backdoor to which renders the whole point of the proposed law moot.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

22. It would destroy the US tech market. Set us back a decade

And make the rest of the world distrust us even more.

[BillZBubb]

27. And third party apps would be generated with extremely strong encryption.

The supposed targets of this bill would simply use those.

It is idiotic, which isn't surprising with Feinstein on board. She's gotta go.