The Crypto War continues with U.S. Senator from Arizona John McCain calling for a ban on any encryption that can't be decrypted by government request:
McCain called for new legislation that would not regulate a backdoor into technology services, but instead would prevent companies from adopting end-to-end encryption. Companies would have to always keep the key that would decrypt the users' data anytime the government requests it.
This could stifle some innovations, not just in messaging platforms, but also in industries such as healthcare, where new technologies have appeared that would either allow patients to be the only ones that can decrypt their medical records, or it would allow companies to encrypt the data in a way that they could still use the data in aggregate, but they wouldn't be able to look at individual records.
Such systems could ensure that the data is essentially unhackable. This type of technology could prevent many of the large data breaches we've seen over the past two years, where hundreds of millions of people had their information stolen.
Senator McCain dismissed this as a concern, and actually seems to believe that such encryption is harmful to security, not helpful:
"We have to encourage companies and individuals who rely on encryption to recognize that our security is threatened, not encouraged, by technologies that place vital information outside the reach of law enforcement. Developing technologies that aid terrorists like Islamic State is not only harmful to our security, but it is ultimately an unwise business model."
The Senator didn't explain why exactly strong encryption would be an "unwise" business model for companies. So far, strong encryption seems to have worked quite well for companies such as Apple, who have pushed forward on the technology despite calls from FBI's chief, James Comey, to remove that type of encryption from iPhones and iPads.
Senator McCain also warned that we shouldn't allow "safe spaces" for terrorists online. This is a message that has also been mirrored by Comey, as well as the UK's Home Secretary, Theresa May, who has been promoting the Investigatory Powers bill that tries to force companies to "remove encryption" when asked by the government.
Previously:
California Lawmaker Tries Hand at Banning Encryption
Theresa May's Internet Spy Powers Bill 'Confusing', Say MPs
Related Stories
Following a recent attempt in New York to legislate backdoors or ban encrypted devices, a California lawmaker is trying to do the same. Only this time, the boogeyman is human trafficking:
A second state lawmaker has now introduced a bill that would prohibit the sale of smartphones with unbreakable encryption. Except this time, despite very similar language to a pending New York bill, the stated rationale is to fight human trafficking, rather than terrorism.
Specifically, California Assemblymember Jim Cooper's (D-Elk Grove) new bill, which was introduced Wednesday, would "require a smartphone that is manufactured on or after January 1, 2017, and sold in California, to be capable of being decrypted and unlocked by its manufacturer or its operating system provider."
If the bill passes both the Assembly and State Senate and is signed into law by Gov. Jerry Brown (D), it would affect modern iOS and Android devices, which enable full-disk encryption that neither Apple nor Google can access. AB 1681's language is nearly identical to another bill re-introduced in New York state earlier this month, but Cooper denied that it was based on any model legislation, saying simply that it was researched by his staff. He also noted that the sale of his own iPhone would be made illegal in California under this bill.
Cooper himself, a 30 year veteran with the Sacramento County Sheriff's Department, told Ars that allowing local law enforcement to access unencrypted phones through the warrant process was not the same thing as allowing the National Security Agency or the CIA free rein. He also noted that "99 percent" of Californians would never have their phones be implicated in a law enforcement operation, implying that they should not have to worry.
Engadget puts it best: "The bill would put every Californian's digital security at risk to prosecute a few pimps."
In other Crypto War news, NSA Director Admiral Mike Rogers recently said that "encryption is foundational to the future," staking an opposite position from that of FBI Director James Comey.
Police and security services will be able to see names of sites visited in the past year without a warrant, under the draft Investigatory Powers Bill.
The science and technology Committee says its requirements are confusing, and firms fear a rise in hacking.
The Home Office said it would study the report's findings.
When she announced the draft bill last year, Theresa May stressed that the authorities would not be able to see individual web pages visited, just basic data, such as domain names like bbc.co.uk or facebook.com.
The information would, of course, only be used for 'official purposes'.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by hemocyanin on Wednesday February 10 2016, @08:44AM
Morons. All this would mean is that people would get their end-to-end encryption apps from non-US companies. It's a deliberate attempt to export even more jobs out of the country.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 10 2016, @08:44AM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 10 2016, @09:26AM
relax.
if this ever became law it would be the equivalent of jaywalking.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 10 2016, @10:03AM
Because you vote 'em in office!
(Score: 2) by fnj on Wednesday February 10 2016, @11:24AM
That's an extremely simple-minded response. I, for example, never voted for an idiot. I can think of more thought-provoking responses.
* Because there is no IQ test for voting
I'll preempt some of the knee-jerk backlash by merely observing - did I advocate it? Nope. But an intellectually honest person will have to admit that, as long as stupid people participate in, even perhaps predominate in, the voting process - then that process is unlikely to yield good results.
* Because the entire slate of candidates is made up of fools and knaves
I.e., there isn't effective enough grass-roots change. "The system" has an iron lock. Pandering is a time-proven successful strategy. And so on.
(Score: 2) by fido_dogstoyevsky on Wednesday February 10 2016, @11:35AM
Because you vote 'em in office!
That's an extremely simple-minded response. I, for example, never voted for an idiot.
Serious question, not trolling, did you ever vote AGAINST an idiot?
It's NOT a conspiracy... it's a plot.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Thursday February 11 2016, @12:13AM
That presupposes a non-idiot being an available option.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 10 2016, @12:06PM
I'll preempt some of the knee-jerk backlash by merely observing - did I advocate it?
You should have preempted it by mentioning that IQ is pseudoscience.
(Score: 1) by bobmorning on Wednesday February 10 2016, @12:15PM
Look at the demographics of AZ. Old, retired geezers using flip phones and wearing lifealert braclets. He is playing to his constituents.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday February 10 2016, @01:30PM
"The system" has an iron lock.
I used to be a very strong believer in it, but look at yesterday... Rubio crushed like a tin can under an army tank. Rubio is Jeb the second, and Jeb did "great" too. It seems like this election cycle the support of wall street / neocons / establishment is worth around -40% points.
Iowa and N.H. do not represent the country very closely. Who knows what'll happen in the big states, the ones where the electoral votes decide the election.
It'll be interesting to see if this trickles down from the prez races to the lower levels.
I remember when the neocons kicked all the normal moderate "real" types out, thinking it'll be something Tolkien-esque when we re conqueror. Well, suck it, Jeb, and Rubio and Hillary too.
We might be getting suckered into something like Obama's "Change" which he forgot to mention was a subset of the whole slogan, that being "Change Nothing".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 10 2016, @04:08PM
For the best result (whatever that happens to be), you actually want as many people voting as possible.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 10 2016, @05:25PM
For the best result (whatever that happens to be)
There is no objective "best result" here. A lot of people would happily trade their fundamental freedoms for security, and a lot of people wouldn't. It's a preference.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 10 2016, @05:55PM
Sure if you are looking for answers to questions that have a definitive answer. Like estimating quantities.
Why because everyone has the same goal, to correctly guess the right number.
When it comes to elections all we have anymore are the outliers voting. The large amount of input is basically stupid people voting for their one little thing (abortion, gay marriage, corp taxes) at the exclusion of all others. This is compounded by the fact that one candidate that will do exactly what you think needs to be done on this one issue, probably has a whole host of batshit crazy ideas on other important topics, but they are still elected even though by all rational logic it never should have happened.
Trump has caught on to this and thats why hes doing so well. All of his ideas, especially put together are crazy, yet he is pushing all of the right buttons to get the right groups fired up.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 10 2016, @12:43PM
"Because you vote 'em in office!"
Did I?
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/princeton-experts-say-us-no-longer-democracy [talkingpointsmemo.com]
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=9354310 [cambridge.org]
https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf [princeton.edu]
(Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Wednesday February 10 2016, @03:50PM
"I am your senator!"
"Well I didn't vote for you"
(Score: 2) by turgid on Wednesday February 10 2016, @11:17AM
I'm sure Mark Twain made some witty remark about "politicians" and "idiots" being synonymous.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 2) by fnj on Wednesday February 10 2016, @11:26AM
Mark Twain was witty when he was a died-in-the-wool imperialist, and then still witty when he turned 180 degrees and became a strong anti-imperialist.
(Score: 1) by Osamabobama on Wednesday February 10 2016, @04:55PM
*dyed-in-the-wool
Appended to the end of comments you post. Max: 120 chars.
(Score: 2) by PinkyGigglebrain on Wednesday February 10 2016, @03:27PM
Why the hell do we need to get governed by tech illiterates?
We don't, its just that people keep re-electing the same idiots every time they get a chance to vote.
Remember:The only way you "throw your vote away" is if you don't use it. Write in your pet hamster for all I care but make your vote be counted.
"Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Wednesday February 10 2016, @05:51PM
Throwing your vote away isn't even the worst thing you can do. Voting for an evil scumbag is even worse than not voting, even if that evil scumbags is 'the lesser of two evils'. I would rather the people who vote for authoritarians to not vote at all.
(Score: 1) by Capt. Obvious on Wednesday February 10 2016, @08:11PM
He's not a tech-illiterate. He honestly doesn't think that privacy is a right, or important.
I remember he was for having libraries report on what books you took out as well.
(Score: 2) by davester666 on Wednesday February 10 2016, @08:57PM
Hell, he flip-flopped on torture, which happened to him DIRECTLY. The man has no principles. Is "I want to keep getting re-elected" a principle?
(Score: 2, Funny) by Absolutely.Geek on Wednesday February 10 2016, @08:52AM
having trouble with new tricks.
Don't trust the police or the government - Shihad: My mind's sedate.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by frojack on Wednesday February 10 2016, @09:08AM
Not even the founding fathers believed the government should have the ability to read every communication.
Uts not New tricks that confuses him, it's the concept that the government is supposed to be supervised by the people, not the other way around.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 10 2016, @01:17PM
Its a tricky issue. On one hand, the Constitution protects against against unreasonable search/seizure without probably cause. This means that the Government can't just read your mail. That said, the Government effectively ruled "E-mail doesn't count" (https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/05/government-explains-away-fourth-amendment-protection-digital-communications). As a byproduct, military-class communications technology is being used to encrypt everything, resulting in the inability for the Government to search/seize, even if they have probable cause and a warrant from a judge.
The situation that I want is that the Government is able to search/seize when they have obeyed the process (after all, it is legal for them to take the computers used in the crime, as well as your physical person), and not be able to search/seize when they haven't (reading my E-mail just for kicks). I don't know of a technology which allows for this situation without also creating a backdoor for literally everyone.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anal Pumpernickel on Wednesday February 10 2016, @05:32PM
I don't know of a technology which allows for this situation without also creating a backdoor for literally everyone.
The fourth amendment only allows them to make the attempt to seize what they want if they follow the proper procedures. The fourth amendment does not say that their success must be guaranteed; it does not say that technologies which hinder their success rate at seizing information can be banned. So even if such a magical technology did exist, mandating that we use it would be unconstitutional. Not only would it be unconstitutional, but it would be unethical. Our rights should not vanish just to make it easier for law enforcement to do its job.
And even if they have obeyed the process, the law they think you violated might be wrong. Just obeying the process isn't enough when we have so many unconstitutional and unethical laws on the books.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Thursday February 11 2016, @02:28AM
The government can search and seize all they want (with probable cause and a warrant). They were never guaranteed the ability to read my papers. Even before the Constitution was signed, people were keeping notes and ledgers in cipher to keep it away from nosy competition and tax agents alike. It's always been perfectly legal.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday February 10 2016, @09:10AM
You forgot an essential detail that makes this newsworthy.
Better behave, puppy, because TFA is about what an old top dog has to say, so be content with the bone you have while you have it.
You get it now?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by Absolutely.Geek on Thursday February 11 2016, @01:26AM
Note: I don't live in America......my caring level is low on this particular instance of the issue. The issue itself concerns me greatly; every week we hear about some idiot wanting to ban / break encryption.
Don't trust the police or the government - Shihad: My mind's sedate.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 10 2016, @09:35AM
Is this not the very same senator who unleashed the Palin Cypher upon the world? An end-to-end encryption system so invulnerable that no one has yet been able to figure out what Sarah is saying!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 10 2016, @03:47PM
I thought it was a virus?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 10 2016, @08:26PM
I think "Al Gore's Climategate science stuff" is "The" or "A" once decrypted based on frequency analysis.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 10 2016, @10:15AM
A U.S. citizen is 58 times more likely [thefreethoughtproject.com] to be killed by a police officer than a terrorist. This is not about protecting people from terrorists.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 10 2016, @10:40AM
well... not a white US citizen, so this statistic is irrelevant to politicians.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Thexalon on Wednesday February 10 2016, @02:38PM
You know there are non-white politicians in the US, right? You know, like that Obama guy, and 20% of the US House.
My favorite argument for how not-dangerous terrorism is: Even factoring in Sept 11, 2001, more Americans died from falling off of ladders than were killed by terrorists. But for some reason, we aren't wanting to spend billions on improved ladder safety. And of course, none of that compares with the risks you take every time you get in a car to drive somewhere.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 10 2016, @07:06PM
I am aware of nonwhite US politicians, yes. and I don't actually believe that mccain himself is a racist, although I believe the US ruling class acts racist in general.
also, my understanding is that black police officers are just as biased against black people as white police officers are --- is there any reason for politicians to be different?
(Score: 2) by jcross on Wednesday February 10 2016, @05:25PM
It's kind of fun to replace instances of "people who want to pry into secrets" and "people who want to keep secrets" with different values:
"We have to encourage companies and individuals who rely on encryption to recognize that our security is threatened, not encouraged, by technologies that place vital information outside the reach of Russian organized crime. Developing technologies that aid citizens in keeping their identifying documents safe is not only harmful to our security, but it is ultimately an unwise business model."
"We have to encourage companies and individuals who rely on encryption to recognize that our security is threatened, not encouraged, by technologies that place vital information outside the reach of foreign industries. Developing technologies that aid corporations in keeping trade secrets is not only harmful to our security, but it is ultimately an unwise business model."
And so on.
(Score: 2) by Justin Case on Wednesday February 10 2016, @10:18AM
How about an end-to-end senator ban? Makes about as much sense.
Anyway, kiddies, this is why you can't let protecting your computers and data be somebody else's problem. $BIGCORP can't decrypt your data if $BIGCORP doesn't have the key. Yeah maybe kindly old war veteran and former hostage McStain will send his jackbooted goons to rubber-hose your key out of you, but at least then you know you've been attacked. No more free-speech-doesn't-mean-you-can-talk secret-court gag orders that make it illegal for anyone to tell you you're under investigation.
Also, it would be good if someone could decrypt the Constitution and read it to these shitheads.
(Score: 2) by Kromagv0 on Thursday February 11 2016, @02:52PM
Also, it would be good if someone could decrypt the Constitution and read it to these shitheads.
Well according to the DMCA decrypting a double ROT13 encrypted document is illegal so it just can't be done.
T-Shirts and bumper stickers [zazzle.com] to offend someone
(Score: 5, Insightful) by jdavidb on Wednesday February 10 2016, @10:45AM
We have to encourage companies and individuals who rely on encryption to recognize that our security is threatened, not encouraged, by technologies that place vital information outside the reach of law enforcement.
I have to encourage John McCain and his ilk to recognize that I don't give a flip about the security of the federal government. It's not the "terrorists" from the other side of the world who are restricting my freedoms. John McCain and the institution he is a part of won't lift a finger to preserve my liberties and protect my rights, so I couldn't care less about their concerns.
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 4, Insightful) by fnj on Wednesday February 10 2016, @11:34AM
You don't know what restriction of freedom is until you are ruled by muslim psychopaths, or they are running rampant through your homeland. That'll get your head straight in a hurry. Is this happening now in the US? No, but that doesn't mean it can't.
Just sayin'. I think McCain is an idiot, this call of his is idiotic, and a lot of things about the US government are ugly intrusions, but that doesn't mean I turn a blind eye on terrorism and religious tyranny.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 10 2016, @11:51AM
I don't understand. how would a ban of encryption help with the fight against "muslim psychopaths"? the gp simply said that mccain is trying to restrict gp's freedom. while i agree that people living in the US have it pretty good when compared with people ruled by muslim theocracies, the gp is right.
(Score: 3, Disagree) by fnj on Wednesday February 10 2016, @04:02PM
Did I ever say or imply it would, or that it would be the worth the cost to liberty even if it would? Any other straw men to put forward?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 10 2016, @06:12PM
Then exactly what is your argument? I read the same thing from what you said.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 10 2016, @05:19PM
Those same psychopaths could also end up breaking thru a govt-mandated back door and creating a lot of chaos.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday February 10 2016, @07:56PM
You don't know what restriction of freedom is until you are ruled by muslim psychopaths,
I take it you prefer Christian psychopaths.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 10 2016, @08:33PM
If you want to reduce Muslim extremism, the best way to do it is to export American culture. Get the islamists hooked on football and French fries, and it's game over.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 10 2016, @09:23PM
If you want to reduce Muslim extremism, the best way to do it is to export American culture. Get the islamists hooked on football and Freedom fries, and it's game over.
FTFY. We ain't cheese eating surrender monkeys, you insensitive clod!
'murica, Fuck yeah!
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Thursday February 11 2016, @02:56AM
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Thursday February 11 2016, @02:51AM
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 2) by bziman on Friday February 12 2016, @04:48AM
Um, what's the difference between the Muslim extremists you seem to fear and the Christian extremists who actually do rule our country? I'll tell you: one speaks Arabic. Otherwise, their policies of violence, control, and intolerance seem largely indistinguishable.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Wednesday February 10 2016, @03:12PM
As always, the scared portion of the population will reject this steadfast "extreme" liberty-or-death view.
Rand Paul's candidacy tanked for a number of factors, but one of them was the rise of ISIS. The Jan. 14th [soylentnews.org] and especially the Dec. 15th [soylentnews.org] Republican debate showed just how niche of a view anti-surveillance libertarianism is these days.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1) by jdavidb on Thursday February 11 2016, @02:52AM
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Thursday February 11 2016, @02:51AM
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 10 2016, @11:48AM
Meanwhile, terrorists will be using cryptography developed elsewhere, or rolling their own, which is perfectly feasible given their security needs, the rest of the world will be using protocols and algorithms with no backdoors to do private communications required for safe electronic commerce. The United States will regress into a technological backwater as a result.
(Score: 2) by tibman on Wednesday February 10 2016, @03:34PM
It didn't take long to get TSAs master keys: https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2015/09/tsa_master_keys.html [schneier.com]
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 2) by Marand on Wednesday February 10 2016, @01:01PM
What do politicians and the RIAA have in common? (Aside from both being owned by corporations.)
When their established practices fail, they seem to think the solution is to throw more of it at people and, if that doesn't work, use any trick necessary, including using legislation as a sledgehammer. Anything to avoid adapting. It's not just them, though; this is a recurring theme with any established power facing the prospect of its old ways failing. Look at the bang-up job the print and newspaper industries have done at adapting, too.
In this case, the failing model is easy communication interception, and it's worked through every other medium so far. Intercepting mail was easy, especially with the government running the post office. Wiretapping was a simple matter with telephones. With celllular it got harder, so the solution was to add laws to make it illegal to make it harder. This is just more of the same. Why update your practices and do more work when you can just make it illegal to be inconvenient?
The sad thing is, it's going to happen eventually, just like it always does. It keeps showing up, over and over. Even if there's an outcry against it, it'll just keep getting pushed until people as a whole get tired of fighting, or if that fails to happen it'll show up as a rider in some SAVE THE PUPPIES AND KITTIES ACT bill or be part of a secret agreement nobody's allowed to know about until it's passed.
(Score: 2) by fnj on Wednesday February 10 2016, @04:04PM
I think you could say it a lot more succinctly. They both double down on stupid.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 10 2016, @02:09PM
If you outlaw guns, only criminals will have guns. If you outlaw encryption...
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday February 10 2016, @03:14PM
Why wait? Let's just declare ourselves to be criminals now! We'll avoid the rush at least.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 10 2016, @03:20PM
The problem is here
We have to encourage companies and individuals who rely on encryption to recognize that our security is threatened, not encouraged, by technologies that place vital information outside the reach of law enforcement
Mr. McCain assumes that law enforcement works FOR the people. It doesn't. It works for the powers of the day, and those haven't been 'the people' in a long time. On the other hand, if mr McCain means by "our security", his own and that of the powers of the day and not the people, then sure, he is right...
Remember kids, MI-5 recycled 'Regnum Defende' into 'Status Quo Defende' a while ago. The same happened with "To Protect and Serve".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 10 2016, @04:01PM
Is it too late to start a massive write-in campaign for Edward Snowden? Perhaps that would show the Giant Douches and Turd Sandwiches that at least some of the unwashed masses don't like their 'two sides of the same coin' game.
(Score: 2) by Kromagv0 on Thursday February 11 2016, @02:58PM
Hell I would encourage everyone to write his name in, I will likely do that this election.
T-Shirts and bumper stickers [zazzle.com] to offend someone
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Wednesday February 10 2016, @05:00PM
It is clear Senator McCain either does not understand the 1st Amendment or simply does not care. Either way he is a menace to our form of government. McCain / Feingold was bad enough, now he is doubling down on the same evil.
Back in 2008 he said on TV that "nobody outside of Washington" ever complained about his support of McCain / Feingold but that was because he never campaigned within a hundred miles of me. I really wanted to ask him straight up, "What part of 'Congress shall make no law...' is beyond your English comprehension skills?" Simply asking "English Motherf*cker. Do you speak it?" would be amusing but not as likely to make it to a soundbite.
I ended up voting for McCain / Palin in 2008 because I believed Obama / Biden an existential level threat. I renounces that position a few years ago. Obama was indeed as bad as predicted but has triggered a healthy immune response from the body politic. Electing McCain would not have done so yet he would have, as POTUS, tried again and probably succeeded, in pushing new restrictions on free speech in elections, this rebirth of Clipper crap, Cap and Trade, "Comprehensive immigration Reform (Amnesty)" and so much more of the Progressive agenda.
I'm already opposed to him though, what is needed to send him a message is for people on the Left who care about Free Speech issues to contribute to his PRIMARY opponent. It goes without saying you should also contribute and (vote if in CO) against him in the general should be survive his challenge but it is the primary where the message is best sent. It will then be the duty of Republicans who believe in Free Speech to support his Democratic challenger in the general if he isn't stopped in the Primary. Donate and then email a copy of the confirmation directly to Sen. McCain's office. At some point drastic measures are called for, if we lose a couple of Senate seats sending a message it is time to risk it. We need to 'promote' a lot of people to lobbyist like Eric Cantor.
I hope and pray this sentiment of nuking corrupt lifers who want power for the sake of power and doing stupid / evil crap is the larger motivation for Sanders "schlonging" Clinton yesterday instead of actually supporting a Democratic Socialist but I don't see the motivations on that side as well as I can see that most of my side supporting Trump are motivated by hatred of our own Party and a desire to see it burned to the ground.
(Score: 2) by Fnord666 on Wednesday February 10 2016, @05:45PM
It is clear Senator McCain either does not understand the 1st Amendment or simply does not care. Either way he is a menace to our form of government. McCain / Feingold was bad enough, now he is doubling down on the same evil.
What does this have to do with the 1st amendment? In no way does banning encryption infringe your right to free speech. Now the 4th amendment on the other hand...
(Score: 3, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday February 10 2016, @07:55PM
What does this have to do with the 1st amendment? In no way does banning encryption infringe your right to free speech. Now the 4th amendment on the other hand...
If I want to transmit to you the string "100101010111110101011001010100110101," it is my right, per the 1st amendment.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by jmorris on Thursday February 11 2016, @12:19AM
I have the right to perform math. I have the right to tell others how to do it. I have the right to teach my computer to do my math really fast. I have the right to have my computer read instructions written by others. I have the right to speak of the results of any calculations I perform. They do not have the lawful authority to dictate what math problems I may have my computer solve and which ones I want to publish the results of. In the end that is really all the encryption fight is about, the right to do math. And yes the implications of this mental model on patents on math mean MPEG LA shouldn't exist in current form since math should not be patentable.
And for all the talk about this being about the terrorists we all know they want to monitor US. All the NSA data collection has yet to catch a terrorist, they aren't even all that interested in them. Yea they would stop a huge attack if they happened on it but other than that they really do not care since if they bat 1000 people figure the problem is solved and there goes their reason to have these 'extraordinary', 'temporary' powers.
And yea the 4th Amendment problems also exist. Should have been more clear but both are equally existential threats to our form of government that McCain supports. Lets not get to invested in WHICH Amendment is being violated since all of them, and more, are part of our unalienable Rights we are endowed by our Creator with. Don't fall for the rights were granted by the Bill of Rights bait n switch that the Progs have been quietly encouraging.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 10 2016, @11:46PM
"It is clear Senator McCain either does not understand the 1st Amendment" nor do you. This is a 4th amendment issue, not 1st.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday February 11 2016, @08:08AM
No, it is both. If communications that are encrypted in such a way as to make it extremely difficult for the government to decrypt are banned, then they are, in effect, banning certain forms of communications. This is absolutely a first amendment issue, as well as a fourth amendment issue.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday February 10 2016, @06:03PM
I know, I know, "do not attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity." Sorry, but this is a case of the stupidity being so dangerous it evolves into its own special form of malice. This idiot should never be allowed to govern anything more than his own household again. I am amazed the Constitution hasn't rotted away under the weight of all those politicians' shitstains all over it.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 10 2016, @08:48PM
I know, I know, "do not attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity."
Protip: Hanlon's Razor is a rhetorical gimmick meant to be used as an argument ender by pseudo intellectuals who brow beat others. The words of this Hanlon fool are used to dismiss claims of "conspiracy" meanwhile remaining willfully ignorant that criminals frequently (if not always) hide behind the veil of innocent ignorance.
Hanlon is a moron. Do not be like Hanlon.
(Score: 1) by Osamabobama on Wednesday February 10 2016, @06:45PM
Perhaps he meant that we shouldn't allow "safe spaces" for banking and commerce online. Or was he thinking about selling drugs and pirated Disney films?
Appended to the end of comments you post. Max: 120 chars.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 10 2016, @06:57PM
Well on the upside I dont have to decrypt anything to copy movies anymore then. As I would not be circumventing anything as there is nothing to circumvent.
Dumbass statements and actions like this have side effects. They are easy to produce simply because of the byzantine rule system they have made.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 10 2016, @10:34PM
The MAFIAA will of course be exempt from the law like it already is.