Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Bauglir]

Okay, fair enough, cybercriminals and people who refuse to update their legal software after the bill's entry into force, when that software will presumably be required to incorporate that same backdoor. Depending on the wording of the law, being in the latter group might make you one of the former, but I don't know that, and it's also clearly a technicality, against the spirit of my original post.

[Zangi]

Honestly, I've become so absolutely jaded regarding encryption laws that I say just let the bill pass. Let the world reap what it sows; let it deal with the consequence of a leaked government backdoor of all encryption.

Seriously, if you want to make the government understand how technology works, best way is to show them what happens when their shitty ideas meet reality.

Even then, they'd probably still be confused, especially the older members.

They'd double down on it, outlawing all forms of encryption in what would look like drunken bewilderment by those outside the country/who know better.  Murrican masses will wholeheartedly support this.

[wierd]

No shit.  I would flagrant anti-stazi, by offering free whole device encryption services to people I know.

Set up right, it looks and feels like any other phone. It just doesnt bend over for uncy sam.


To make it work, the US Govt would have to demand bootsector locking on all devices, mandate unsafe codepaths so their absurd backdoor is in, and then forbid importation of any handset ot device that did not meet these requirements. That will fucking kill the US tech sector, and would ensure that all personal tech devices in the US are garbage compared to global offerings.

Black market handsets would be very popular.

[Shadowlord]

Zangi: Somehow I doubt it. As soon as people hear from their credit card companies, banks, etc, that it will no longer be safe to shop online or pay bills online or do anything involving anything important online...

[wierd]

Wanna know the most hilarious part?

The mandated backdoor is likely to be the single biggest entrypoint used for securing your own device.

Device makers are required to incorporated it, and not patch it. It will be in all devices. That means all attempts they make elsewhere to secure the device are not worth examining. Just focus on the single bullseye target. There will be so many toolkits to exploit the hole for regaining full user control that feinstein's head will pop like an over inflated baloon.

I want to know what they are feeding those people on capital hill. They grow prize winning idiots every year up there!

[smjjames]

Not to mention that the effects wouldn't be restricted to the US, EVERYBODY that does anything that is on an US server or a company in the US would be affected.

@wierd: I looked at the wiki and I guess she didn't have a good competitor or something and republicans REALLY don't do well in the state.

Wanna know the most hilarious part?

The mandated backdoor is likely to be the single biggest entrypoint used for securing your own device.

Device makers are required to incorporated it, and not patch it. It will be in all devices. That means all attempts they make elsewhere to secure the device are not worth examining. Just focus on the single bullseye target. There will be so many toolkits to exploit the hole for regaining full user control that feinstein's head will pop like an over inflated baloon.

I want to know what they are feeding those people on capital hill. They grow prize winning idiots every year up there!

I wonder which lobbyists are behind her idiociticy on encryption. Or maybe she's just an ignorant old (82 years old) woman.

[Baffler]

I think she just strongly favors a paternalistic government. This is hardly the first poorly conceived, onerous restriction on people's rights she's thrown her weight behind.

[Strife26]

At which point the entire tech world would make a mass exodus from the US.

Then so be it. Once America's abandoned the ideals of freedom, it ain't America anymore. Doesn't even deserve the feminine pronoun. Let her fester and rot as our age's Rome.

[wierd]

Shes worried about the terrorists, because she's an officious asshat that cannot comprehend how a government can be effective internationally without being the 400lb gorilla in the room.

The vast majority of international terrorism comes from a simple interaction:

Powerful foriegn nation wants something from little, less powerful nation, uses one-sided politics and strongarm tactics to essentially pillage the little nation for everything the bigger nation wants.

This disenfranchises and pisses off the citizens of the little nation, and incentivizes them to become terrorists.

Throw hard handed "enforcement", like unmanned drone strikes killing people at weddings and birthday parties into the mix, and you have a downward spiral into madness.

Solution? DONT ENGAGE IN ONE SIDED, HEAVY HANDED POLITICS.

It really is just that simple!!

The world needs to quit the middle east cold turkey, wait 3 or so generations, then engage them fairly and honestly. The terrorism shit will be vastly reduced.

But of course, our leaders dont comprehend the concept of actual fairness, or of foriegn soveriegnty, and a number of other things, which is why internationally the US government is seen as a bunch of raving hyenas that the world would be better off without, which is why terrorists grow up like weeds.

Feinstien has an IV of the freaking koolaid pumped into her at all times it seems. "Rah Rah! America's number one! (at having incarcerated citizens for nonviolent offenses, killing innocent civilians internationally, and having the single worst foriegn policy) Rah rah, America! RAH!"

She probably honestly does feel that strong encryption eroding the heavy hand of the US Govt's ability to squash people is a terrible, horrible thing.

Again, it is because she is unable to comprehend how government can operate without being the fucking stazi.

[Strife26]

Assassinating people with drones is a great policy. Cheap, safe, and keeps the boots-on-the-ground intervention far away.

[wierd]

No, it's a terrible idea.

1) You are murdering citizens of another country, extraterritorially, and extrajudicially.

Would you like it if Canada started drone striking New york? No? why do you think the middle eastern countries should like it?

Want to eliminate a potentially hostile political target? Get the local government to arrest and deal with them locally. Dont just fly in thinking you own the place, because you dont.

2) Doing so kills lots of innocent people. How many innocent people? So many that you have to reclassify what you consider to be an enemy combatant to avoid indicating that you kill more innocents than actual targets. (No, seriously.)

3) doing so is simply reprenhensible, and a stark violation of foriegn soveriegnty.

No. Drone strikes are not a good idea, even if sending boots on the ground is an even less good idea.  The good idea is not violating another nation's soveriegnty, even if they do things you dont like, like telling you "no".

[mainiac]

Would you like it if Canada started drone striking New york?

Not really, no.  For one thing, I dont like people dying.  For another thing it serves no purpose and I like people dying for no reason even less.

Be careful when you pile assumptions about equivalence on top of each other.

[wierd]

There isnt a functional equivalent that meets proper muster. The US spends more on military enforcement than the next 3 countries combined.

I suppose a more adverserial duo would make sense....

How about India and Pakistan?  India starts sending drones to pakistan to assasinate people it thinks are involved in pakistan's missile program.


Would that work better for you?

[mainiac]

It's not about the military spending, it's the motivation.  I hinted at this when I said "no reason."

[wierd]

India and Pakistan still meet muster there. They are in a mexican standoff concerning border missiles.

Is it acceptable for India, having been told by Pakistan that "No, we wont stop making missiles", to start assasinating Pakisani missile scientists and engineers to force its agenda?

Because that is essentially the situation the US has with middle eastern countries, just with domestic terrorists instead of missiles.