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: 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.