SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
El Reg :
Analysis In the wake of the FBI's failed fight against Apple, Senators Richard Burr (R-NC) and Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) have introduced a draft bill that would effectively ban strong crypto.
The bill would require tech and communications companies to allow law enforcement with a court order to decrypt their customers' data. Last week a draft copy of the bill, dubbed the Compliance with Court Orders Act of 2016, was leaked, but the new version is even worse than the discussion draft.
In the draft version, court orders could only be issued for a crime resulting in death or serious bodily harm, terrorism and espionage, crimes against minors, serious violent felonies or Federal drug crimes. In the final version, those caveats are gone, so any court order will allow the police to access the data they want.
The bill would apply to "device manufacturers, software manufacturers, electronic communication services, remote communication services, providers of wire or electronic communication services, providers of remote communication services, or any person who provides a product or method to facilitate a communication or to process or store data." That's a pretty wide net.
"No entity or individual is above the law," said Feinstein. "The bill we have drafted would simply provide that, if a court of law issues an order to render technical assistance or provide decrypted data, the company or individual would be required to do so.
"Today, terrorists and criminals are increasingly using encryption to foil law enforcement efforts, even in the face of a court order. We need strong encryption to protect personal data, but we also need to know when terrorists are plotting to kill Americans."
Idiots, I tell you, they're a pair of idiots.
(Score: 1, Disagree) by jmorris on Friday April 15 2016, @01:43AM
Seriously, Tim Cook thought he could act all bad ass and tell the USG to pound sand and it would look cool. Hell, he probably thought it would juice sales. So he poked the bear in about the worst possible case imaginable, one where he had zero moral ground to make a stand on. A phone that was government property that had the communications of a known terrorist on it and a unquestionably valid court order had been issued. They could have created a quick hack that would have been public key locked to only work on that one handset, the court order even explicitly said so. They could have done it ever so quietly and not stirred up a ruckus. If this showdown is going to happen, let it happen when the government has a lousy hand, or at least one worse than a tailor made best case scenario. But no, Tim thought he was invincible, that Apple could do no wrong, that the Reality Distortion Field was not only still operating post Jobs but that it could even work on the government in the midst of a terrorism panic.
So now the System is going to fight back, stupidly of course. It is the government, did anyone think it even COULD deal with these sort of issues in a smart way? Btw, this is the big reason why I'm for a smaller government; limit the damage. All the Folk who post here can see how dumb this move is, most don't see that just about everything else the government does is about as skillful.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Friday April 15 2016, @01:52AM
This bill will damage the government far more than it damages the tech industry. If it does somehow manage to pass the bill and damage the tech industry, that will result in more damage to the government, since there will be less profits to tax once overseas customers bail.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Nerdfest on Friday April 15 2016, @02:00AM
Yep. The tech industry can fairly easily leave. There's a friendly country north of you that's always looking for good engineers. With the way the current election's going, I don't think it would take much of a push.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anal Pumpernickel on Friday April 15 2016, @01:56AM
Call Tim Cook and thank him for this one
No thanks. I'll blame the ones responsible instead: The ones who created the bill.
What you're doing is like saying we should blame terrorists for the Unpatriotic Act. Yes, maybe the government reacted to the attacks by creating that law, but it was still them who decided to create the law in the end. They didn't have to react that way. The same is true here.
one where he had zero moral ground to make a stand on.
Taking a against a government that wants to impose indentured servitude upon individuals and companies gave him the moral high ground. I don't agree that the court order was "unquestionably valid". That it was the government's property is completely irrelevant.
If they wanted the data, they should have figured out how to get it themselves, without ever involving Apple. If that's difficult, too bad. They don't get to force people into indentured servitude just to make it more likely that they can decrypt the data.
Btw, this is the big reason why I'm for a smaller government
If you want smaller government, it would seem smart to applaud Tim Cook for his actions.
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Friday April 15 2016, @02:31AM
If you want smaller government, it would seem smart to applaud Tim Cook for his actions.
Ask google to define "Phyrric Victory" for ya.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anal Pumpernickel on Friday April 15 2016, @03:01AM
The government will use anything and everything as an excuse to increase its power. Terrorist attacks, companies not following absurd orders, people using a technology to avoid surveillance, etc. I don't think any one thing can be said to be the only factor in the government's latest power grab, but even if there was such a factor, it would still be the government's own fault in the end.
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Friday April 15 2016, @03:14AM
It wasn't only Apple. According to a CNN story [cnn.com], Amazon, Facebook, Google, Microsoft and other companies intended to write to the court in support of Apple.
I doubt that that was a realistic option in such a high-profile case as the one against Syed Farook.
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 15 2016, @03:39AM
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday April 15 2016, @04:59AM
You fucking boot-licking fascist moron. Don't you ever call yourself a libertarian or a freethinker again; you've got that huge authoritarian cock shoved so far down your throat you're farting jizz swastikas. I knew there was a reason I hated you and this is it.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 3, Insightful) by linkdude64 on Friday April 15 2016, @07:25AM
Ran out of mod points, but you'd get one.
He seriously thinks that cooperating with the bad guys and meeting their demands will somehow make them re-think their ways.
(Score: 2) by q.kontinuum on Friday April 15 2016, @11:09PM
I don't want to reference the failed appeasement-politics towards Hitler in this context, but I think I just did it anyway :-=) Appeasement of that kind usually ends bad.
Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Friday April 15 2016, @02:29PM
Seriously, Tim Cook thought he could act all bad ass and tell the USG to pound sand and it would look cool.
So instead he should have just rolled over and let them in? Then we're back where we're at now.
Fuck off and die.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Friday April 15 2016, @05:27PM
So instead he should have just rolled over and let them in?
Yes. It is about choosing which one is the "hill to die on." In the Apple case all of the cards were in the Government's hands and the demands were so reasonable that the attempt to fight turned public opinion against them to a point where such a bill could be introduced and have a dangerously high chance of actually passing.
Apple is asking for us to accept incompatible things. They demand to retain ownership and control over every piece of hardware they sell at the same time they claim they are so secure that nothing can get into them. Then they demand to be an American company when that benefits them while also, on a basis not clearly specified, to be set above our laws.
It would be possible to build a phone that were truly secure. But Apple will never be the company to deliver that product. Neither will Google for that matter. Both base their business model on control of the user.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 15 2016, @06:10PM
You seem to want to blame everyone but the government for the government's own actions, and then you claim that you want a small government. People should fight and oppose the government at every turn, not let them trample over us merely because the government may do something worse in response to our resistance. The government is made up of authoritarian thugs; you shouldn't negotiate with authoritarian thugs.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Friday April 15 2016, @06:29PM
In the Apple case all of the cards were in the Government's hands and the demands were so reasonable that the attempt to fight turned public opinion against them to a point where such a bill could be introduced and have a dangerously high chance of actually passing.
That must be why the government decided to drop the case, because they were so confident of winning, right?
They demand to retain ownership and control over every piece of hardware they sell at the same time they claim they are so secure that nothing can get into them.
Just because I have a really good lock on my front door doesn't mean I let burglars pitch a tent in my yard.
Then they demand to be an American company when that benefits them while also, on a basis not clearly specified, to be set above our laws.
Well yeah, the whole tax haven thing. But that's just standard greed.
It would be possible to build a phone that were truly secure.
Funny, it sounds like they've done a pretty damn good job already with the next version of the phone our TLA homeboys wanted so desperately to get in the pants of. Which was actually out already, so they anticipated the problem.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"