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: 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?"