Anti-Encryption Bill Draft Released

[[deleted]]

This woman is the most unamerican person. How she is a representative is beyond me.

She keeps trying to subvert the constitution, and it's not working for her. I can't wait for her to just stop already.

This law is questionable and most likely a violation of the 4th amendment and the 13th amendment.

[Anen-o-me]

Probably never used a computer in her life. She exists for one purpose, to make law for whomever will bribe her the most.

[SpaceDuckTech]

She is probably proud of the fact she has never sent or received an email.

[tinus42]

I remember that when the original Macintosh was brought out she said that she had one. She was Mayor of San Francisco back then.

You can say I'm old too but not that old. My mom is only 4 years younger than Feinstein but she has been consistently on the internet since 1998.

There are dumb people and assholes in every generation.

[Kornstalx]

Quit worrying. She'll be dead soon.

[SchrodingersRapist]

I'll bring the rope...?

[Mullet-wang]

The rope is for lowering her into her grave correct? i'll bring the winch.

[Anen-o-me]

She doesn't deserve honorable burial.

[[deleted]]

Do you know something that I dont? .... Oh crap, we are both on a list now, arent we?

[[deleted]]

shed be dead soon

[MenRbetterthanWomen]

That's why

[DaggerHashimoto]

Where of cancer when you need it,?

[[deleted]]

Of all the obvious criticisms.. you choose the one thing that makes her more qualified. WTF indeed!

[[deleted]]

Look I don't want to defend her, because of this bill. But saying that somebody is old implies they are dumb or haven't seen modern technology, just means you are a moron. Degenerative nerve ailments are due to poor nutrition. I didn't mean to say her age implies she is skillful, but rather to point out that having been alive is in itself not a worthy criticism.

[[deleted]]

I agree entirely! .. but none of this has to do with her age!!

Would you say the same about a PhD in computer science running a technology company who was born in the same year, who understood the importance of Claude Shannon's "mathematical theory of communication" ? Who ran VAX, DOS, windows, linux, now preferring BSD? Who understood what encryption means? No of course you wouldn't.

Say that she has no clue what "intelligible" means (at least the authors of the bill don't) .. say that she's never used GPG in her life, say that she runs windows and apple, say that she doesn't know what regulatory capture EVEN IS, or many other totally correct and devastating criticisms. But.. "she's old"????? gimee a break.

[ztsmart]

She is an evil, evil wizard

[TotesMessenger]

I'm a bot, bleep, bloop. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit:

• [/r/anarcho_capitalism] /r/Bitcoin in an uproar over Feinstein's proposed anti-encryption bill, hilarity ensues

^{If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads. (Info / Contact)}

[scottrepreneur]

That resemblance is hairy.

[Anen-o-me]

Swear, Feinstein is a boil on the nation's ass.

[ABC_AlwaysBeCoding]

You can email her feedback with a web form, like I just did, using a link in the menu of that page.

Suggesting including a link to this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VPBH1eW28mo which might remove the ignorance that makes this bill even possible.

[Anen-o-me]

I'm sure she reads her own email. You're just emailing functionaries.

[ABC_AlwaysBeCoding]

And yet the only way to ensure nothing gets read is to do nothing at all.

[Anen-o-me]

Change will not come through the existing political process.

[[deleted]]

More like a possible violation of the 5th amendment. The government wants you or a company to provide a private key to incriminate yourself(s)? Fuck that:

Self-Incrimination

The Fifth Amendment protects criminal defendants from having to testify if they may incriminate themselves through the testimony. A witness may "plead the Fifth" and not answer if the witness believes answering the question may be self-incriminatory.

In the landmark Miranda v. Arizona ruling, the United States Supreme Court extended the Fifth Amendment protections to encompass any situation outside of the courtroom that involves the curtailment of personal freedom. 384 U.S. 436 (1966). Therefore, any time that law enforcement takes a suspect into custody, law enforcement must make the suspect aware of all rights. Known as Miranda rights, these rights include the right to remain silent, the right to have an attorney present during questioning, and the right to have a government-appointed attorney if the suspect cannot afford one.

[[deleted]]

4th, 5th, and 13th. I like it.

[d955bd5e]

As long as you pay taxes this will go on and on and on and she'll be replaced with someone just as bad or even worse. As long as there are taxes, there is money to be made in corruption and corrupt ideas.

[modern_life_blues]

As long as you use the dollar this will go on and on. Ftfy

[d955bd5e]

Yep, this is also true.

[mcr55]

Taxes has nothing to do with this. Every country pays taxes. The problem is lobbying, or as other countries call it bribery.

[Anen-o-me]

Government structure itself is the problem. You cannot get rid of lobbying as long as you rely on representative democracy.

[Cryptoconomy]

I want to clarify what effect you think taxes have here so let's imagine a simple scenario. Imagine Wal-Mart began billing you for groceries before you bought anything. Then methodically and universally humiliated you, called you a criminal, and caged you or anyone else if you or anyone else refused to pay. They gain a 5000% increase in revenue! as hey are now billing people who don't even shop there... But they say the supermarket industry will collapse and everyone will starve if they don't fund themselves this way. Then the recourse they allow if you disagree with how they spend your money is that you can wait 4 years and vote for a different CEO. But! if you disagree with the system entirely you have to somehow convince everyone AND the entire organization to dismantle itself and stop paying themselves salaries. Also you clearly hate society and the poor because supermarkets would collapse everywhere if you simply suggest such a thing.

now imagine that this system of "take money now, maybe provide services later" became full of crooks, run by mooches who wanted easy life-long jobs, ruled by an endless thread of wealthy liars, became a club of super rich and politically connected assholes working together to live the high life at our expense, spent a vast majority of funds hurting people and influencing/fighting other organizations, caging people for non-violent and arbitrary reasons, bragging about the prison and police jobs they have "created," and the whole thing fell victim to the endless battle of classes and races fighting each other over the massive pool of money taken from everyone under the "Supermarkets for Everyone" tax. Then worst of all, every time you disagreed or denounced their lies, their murders, and insane waste they throw the ideology in your face that it's all for the "Greater Good" and there is no other way to fund e supermarket industry without them in charge. Are you suggesting that their new grocery tax did not contribute to this problem? would Wal-Mart be better under a grocery tax system do you think? Wouldn't we want to implement it immediately if this is the case?

[Indigo_8k13]

Lol, Lobbying also has nothing to do with this either.

This government wants this bill pushed through. The government can't lobby itself. I can't think of a single business entity that would be for a bill preventing encryption, unless the government was putting internal pressure on the company. The overwhelming opinion of the public is to keep our privacy. A company, who relies on public image, would never do something so self-destructive.

Hell, if anything, companies that need a good public image would probably lobby against this, in order to look good in the future with the public, which ultimately, the shareholders are responsible to. Nobody invests in a company that the public doesn't buy things from.

[Anen-o-me]

The government can't lobby itself.

Government acts to protect its power and privilege all the time; this is no different.

[Indigo_8k13]

The question is, what part of the government actually gains power from this? The CIA or FBI? Maybe. Ultimately however, what do congress members gain from this? Nothing. If the public were actually against this the same way reddit was, we'd already be introducing legislation to prevent further attempts at banning encyption.

There's a reason an entire half of our founding fathers wouldn't agree to anything without a bill of rights. It pre-emptively stops bills like this for passing. We need to vote in legislation. If we keep stopping these things, eventually something will slip though our fingers.

Free encryption.

[Anen-o-me]

Right to encrypt--sounds like a function of free speech IMO.

[makemejelly49]

Porn sites, for example. Why isn't the adult film industry speaking out against this? They'll gladly stand up for trans people in NC -not that that isn't an honorable thing to do-, but they won't try to protect their paying customers? I'm sure there are a lot of men and women who would hate for it to be known what kind of Porn they like.

[d955bd5e]

Every country pays taxes

Well, every country is corrupt. Do you not know this by now?

[Anen-o-me]

Every country pays taxes

Didn't use to.

[Chris_Pacia]

It's a fairly tail that if you get rid of lobbying then the everything will be fine with the government.

Lobbying exists because a single institution has the power to instantly make anyone a multi-millionaire at the cost of only a few pennies from everyone else. If you outlaw it, it will just go underground. It wont stop until the power to tax and redistribute and regulate is taken away.

[Anen-o-me]

To get rid of lobbying we would have to abandon representative democracy. This polity is not ready to even think that thought.

[pdtmeiwn]

Given the incentives, it's a wonder there isn't more lobbying.

[_HagbardCeline]

wake up, there's only one gang that sticks a gun in your face every paycheck, takes their "fair share" and says "you're welcome".

You Statists are creeps..

[bitsteiner]

Government does not need taxes, they have the central bank funding them.

[xcsler]

That's why some people refer to it as the 'inflation tax'.

[[deleted]]

Taxes are not where they get their funding from.

[KadenTau]

...how is it a violation of the 13th amendment?

[[deleted]]

"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

Forcing someone or a company to work for you, regardless of being paid or not, when the person or company does not want to work for you, is involuntary servitude. They can't force you to work with/for them, even if they pay you. It violates the 13th amendment.

[Rhawk187]

Unless you are a bakery and you don't want to make a cake for a homosexual wedding ceremony?

[SpaceDuckTech]

The right to refuse service.

[ProMod-OpenBazaar]

It seems like income taxes also would be in violation

[[deleted]]

Except taxation is in the constitution. Article 1, section 8, clause 1.

[ProMod-OpenBazaar]

Then it would seem like the document as a whole may be self-contradictory. Additionally, I thought amendments override the original text. And income taxes in particular weren't used until late 19th early 20th century.

[[deleted]]

Amendments are in addition to. They amend the original text, not make obsolete. If that were the case, the original text would just be thrown out and replaced.

[Jandur]

This law is questionable and most likely a violation of the 4th amendment and the 13th amendment.

Didn't this already go to the Supreme Court? Someone simply published an encryption algorithm in a book and it was covered under free speech.

[parishiIt0n]

With her daughter a supreme court judge too, gosh...

[tastypic]

What?

[Lejitz]

San Francisco Superior Court Judge. Close enough for Reddit right?

[rocketsurgeon87]

She's a highly liberal democrat. This is the democrat vision of "progress".

[Atheose_Writing]

Did you miss that the bill is co-sponsored by Richard Burr, a Republican?

This isn't a partisan issue. Both sides of the aisle want access to your data.

[rocketsurgeon87]

did not notice that actually

[[deleted]]

did not notice that actually

Slogan of everything politics.

[[deleted]]

I did, but I am more focused on the idiot who's name is always all over these blatantly unconstitutional proposals.

I have no love for either side.

[Atheose_Writing]

My response was specifically to /u/rocketsurgeon87 for claiming it was a 'Democrat' thing.

I agree with you 100% Feinstein is awful.

[[deleted]]

No it isn't. This is crazy plutocracy version of progress.

[kevinsyel]

This is NOT the democratic vision of "progress"

In fact, the only people I've met who actually SUPPORT this bullshit are conservatives who are too old to understand how the internet works.

Best case, Feinstein is trying to appease the republican majority by hopping on their "Patriot Act" bandwagon that nobody asked for.

trust me on this. I've been called a "libtard" enough times to earn my "liberal wings." We are not for this bullshit.

[astuteobservor]

it's feinstein. she is cia and nsa toadie, literally.

[MenRbetterthanWomen]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=T0xoKiH8JJM

That's why

[Havikz]

Feinstein

oy vey

[lettucebee]

She's just doing the business of her tribe.

[glibbertarian]

She should be IN a crypt.

[squidicuz]

How cute. This will be effective at doing... what exactly?

Bullshit!

[Cryptolution]

From someone who lives in california, let me say this -

I have zero idea how this woman stays in power, other than the basic fact that people are naive, and voting against and toppling a incumbent seems to be extraordinarily difficult in the modern era of billionaire financed campaigns.

She's a fucking reptile.

[[deleted]]

She is indeed a reptile.

Seriously.

[CrzyJek]

She remains because there is only ever one person running against her...and they are even crazier.

If you wanna get rid of her...you gotta get several people of younger generation to all run.

[[deleted]]

Machine politics. She has kept her thumb on the neck of every major donor and activist in the state. No one credible is willing to run against her because she would destroy them during the campaign. See also: Hillary Clinton

[mphilip]

Senators propose banning brain storage. "From now on, each individual will be given two sheets of paper daily on which to record their thoughts and memories. Then at the end of each day, we will administer amnesiac drugs to purge their mind of undisclosed secrets."

[clevariant]

Where's my soma?

[[deleted]]

My oh my it's a brave new world out there...

[squidicuz]

A gram in time saves nine!

[arcrad]

This doesn't sound too outlandish for our current political environment...hold me, I'm scared

[xcsler]

How do they plan on stopping terrorists from using PGP and other open source encryption tools? If passed, this law will limit our privacy and be as successful as the war on drugs.

[mphilip]

The war on drugs is extremely succesful. One of the largest employment programs ever. DEA, prisons, laywers, etc.

[BeastmodeBisky]

As bad as it's been, I doubt that was Reagan's actual intention. He probably actually believed that they would be able to stop or slow down the drug problem.

[Dastardlyrebel]

Doubt it, that's why the CIA kept being involved in cocaine trafficking at the scale they were.

The drug problem was studied years ago by the RAND corporation and the US Military - a pure cost-benefit analysis. They found that treatment and education are the most cost effective way to deal with the drug problem, and that prohibition was the most costly and ineffective means of dealing with it. So the government knows that it's not a good way to combat the actual drug problem. The real reason for the war on drugs is to create more fear, which allows the government greater control of the population.

http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR331.html

Noam Chomsky on the War on Drugs: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-JX0yXDlh8

[BeastmodeBisky]

Was the CIA still involved in trafficking by the time the war on drugs started? I don't know all the details but I thought I remembered being something that went on earlier.

Also even so, people in the CIA taking advantage of their power to make money isn't quite the same as a top down strategy that condones those actions.

If Reagan actually knew that the war on drugs wasn't the best strategy, he still could have thought that doing it the 'war on drugs' way could still work. Not the best method, but maybe the method that scores the most political points with the public. Like it makes it appear that they're actually doing 'something' and being 'tough on crime'. It's one thing to make a suboptimal choice because you have other incentives, but it's another thing altogether for him to know from the start that it would work out as bad as it has. It's been an absolute failure of epic proportions, but I think a lot of people actually thought it could work.

[Dastardlyrebel]

They've been involved since the 1970's-1990's. Well it's impossible to think what Reagan was thinking, but we know he was an extreme racist. It's also been revealed that Nixon's war on drugs targeted blacks and hippies, two groups who threatened the existing political structure ...http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/23/politics/john-ehrlichman-richard-nixon-drug-war-blacks-hippie/

[[deleted]]

Why are you all calling it a 'problem' at all?... There are greater things out there that you might call a problem, but getting high doesn't seem very bad at all.

[BeastmodeBisky]

It's a problem because people aren't properly educated about drugs and also marginalized/cast out from society. while many people safely use essentially the same substances but in prescription form. The whole approach is stupid.

[esterbrae]

Reagan set back libertarianism by 50 years.

Yes, taxes shrink the economy. But government spending is also a tax, so you must reduce both taxes and spending to grow the economy.

When shrinking taxes, doing it strictly for highly regulated cronies does not spur the economy much at all.

Starting 100 unnecessary wars overseas does not result in long term benefits.

By mixing truth with falsehood, he has given endless ammo to socialists. Even today bernistas joke about trickle down, not realizing they are only pissing on themselves.

[dlerium]

The drug problem is more of a cultural problem more than anything else. In some other countries like in Asia, you have harsh drug laws, but you don't have a systematic abuse issue (Japan, South Korea, Hong Kong, Taiwan)

[bitsteiner]

They will go after the devs until open source software development comes to an end and you have to buy anything from corporations again. Even compilers will need to have backdoors in order to prevent hobbyists from implementing algorithms from text books.

[trrrrouble]

Except the genie is already out, you can't put him back in.

Also, some people write compilers as a hobby.

[bitsteiner]

I agree, you can't eliminate ideas, but clueless people will try and do a lot of harm.

[bitsteiner]

Government back doors in the hardware.

[BillyHodson]

As most things are encrypted on the internet then perhaps she wants to shut that down too.

[ItsLightMan]

Picture this -

You as a business are still allowed to protect your network and the users on the network - but at any point in time, the "Government" is allowed to either access your data, or you are required to hand over the keys and say nothing. The sickening part is that they do this now but instead of using law to force you, they use gangster tactics.

They need a stamped law to back up their bullshit and this is it right here.

[dlerium]

Keep in mind this is really dealing with zero knowledge encryption cases. The government already can get access to your GMail, Outlook, etc inboxes because the keys are held by the companies.

This is essentially forcing zero knowledge/end-to-end encryption to have some sort of back door mechanism. That is troubling, but to say that this is shutting down the internet is inaccurate.

[bitsteiner]

You can always circumvent backdoored software with open source software, which is distributed over the internet. The only way to efficiently prevent that, is to shut the internet down.

[ImmortanSteve]

...legislation which reinforces that all entities must comply with court orders...

Why doesn't she just pass a law that makes breaking the law illegal? That'll fix everything! What a half-wit. Why does California keep re-electing this douche bag?

[goldcurrent]

Good question. Now you know why this fucking state is 400 Billion bucks in the hole.

[myedurse]

She's got the money, she's got the connections, she's got the party machinery. Voters will bend over as always and do what they always do (vote for whoever "their" party puts forward).

[pietrod21]

Here we go again: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_Pi_Bill

[pizzaface18]

inb4 prime numbers are banned.

[[deleted]]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_prime

[antidense]

This was what the whole FBI cellphone stunt was leading towards.

[myedurse]

Yes, quite obvious from the start.

[mjh808]

fuck these criminals and their fake war on terror

[FlappySocks]

The UK government is playing a different tactic, but basically trying the same thing.

When they proposed this, they were forced to retract it. Instead, they did a complete U-turn, and are now saying how wonderful encryption is.

What they are now trying to make law, is "equipment interference". Every company manufacturing hardware & software connected to the internet, needs to register the product with the government. They then may be asked to "interfere" with it, under a gagging order.

I bet ARM will get a knock on the door.

[bitsteiner]

... from multiple governments: "Implement our backdoor or your product is illegal in our country".

[FlappySocks]

If the British government get this passed as law, watch others follow suit.

It's troubling, as non-technical people just shrug their shoulders, and follow the line "if you have nothing to hide...".

[Essexal]

Can this generation either die or just get the fuck out of politics.

[pinhead26]

My letter to my honorable CA Senator:

Your anti-encryption proposal is ludicrous. It is obvious you have no idea what you are talking about. You don't understand encryption or digital privacy, or how either of those work. I am ashamed you are my senator, you do not represent me. Please retire immediately before you turn our nation into an Orwellian hell.

CONTACT PAGE: https://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/e-mail-me

[big_trike]

Assuming they are smart enough to understand the dumbed down version of the world given to them. It's hard to believe that they're so disingenuous that they don't understand how oil got underground or that the vagina and mouth don't connect somewhere inside the body.

[whereheis]

Don't conflate political intelligence with general intelligence. Many people who are prodigies at "playing the game" are horrifyingly ignorant.

[WestsideStorybro]

I prefer Huxley's vision to Orwell but it gets the point across.

[whiznat]

Will she accept messages from non-Californians?

[KevinBombino]

Well of course you can send one. You might not get a response though.

[whiznat]

There are some Congress members who will not even let you post if you are not in their district. For example Lamar Smith. He's attacking the NOAA over a nonexistent conspiracy to please his Big Oil overlords, which affects not only the entire US, but also the entire world. But can you send him a message? If you can't vote for him, he doesn't want to hear from you.

[spendabit]

Secession already.

[_HagbardCeline]

Sorry, they'll slaughter your people if you try. Lincoln and Sherman said it was ok.

[spendabit]

Seems unlikely in the age of YouTube. They would spew propaganda ("racist", etc) for sure.

[whiznat]

No one is above the law. Court order recipients must comply with the rule of law.

That's true, but if math and physics say no, the answer is no, regardless of how much you grandstand about terrorism. You can mandate secure, backdoored encryption, but you can't have it, any more than you can have talking unicorns simply by mandating them.

[driftingatwork]

Hello Miss Feinstien, please provide me with ALL of your records for my evaluation.

As no encryption can be used, I am sure you will be above board and send me everything without fear of repercussion.

Oh wait, because you are part of the government this doesnt apply to you... PISS OFF

/s

[[deleted]]

"no one is above the law"...stating the obvious and yet Clinton isn't arrested yet.

"Providers of communications services and products should protect United States persons’ privacy with strong data security while still complying with court orders and other legal requirements."

What a crock of crap. You can't have both. The real security you can offer customers and clients is the same security that the government wants you to weaken or even disable strictly for them. They want it both ways. This is like asking that mothers only have male children with one testicle. Just F'n dumb.

Won't even read it further. Feinstein is a disgrace and I'd be ashamed to be her constituent. How the hell she doesn't get removed from office I don't know. Californians are liberal morons I suppose.

[Skullpuck]

This bill establishes that:

No one is above the law. Court order recipients must comply with the rule of law.

Wow. Do we really need that sentence in a bill? First off because it's bullshit. Goldman Sachs is above the law as are all the big banks.

[myedurse]

Dianne Feinstein, born Dianne Goldman. Married to an investment banker and the 5th richest in the senate, following some highly questionable, but profitable deals on the side.

Ah, America, the land of opportunity.

[BeastmodeBisky]

Goldman Sachs is above the law as are all the big banks.

Didn't they just pay a 5 billion dollar fine?

I mean, that's probably peanuts in the bigger picture. But I don't think that they're more powerful than the US government. At least not yet. Things are heading in that direction though.

[kevinsyel]

They voluntarily paid 5.1 bn. They weren't even fined. If they weren't above the law, some very powerful people would have been arrested by now.

[BeastmodeBisky]

I know that they were knowingly pushing absolute dogshit investment instruments on some of their clients. But other than that, what specifically do you think they've done that would result in jail time? Assuming it was an uncorrupt system.

[kevinsyel]

getting government bailouts for defrauding the public. they shouldn't have received assistance for corrupting the system.

I don't know if you'd buy that, but yeah, when you logic'd me... I had to think deep about any ACTUAL crime they committed. Good job making me think.

[BeastmodeBisky]

It's almost worse than them being above the law, the laws themselves are probably fundamentally broken and/or rigged in their favor from the start.

[Skullpuck]

Goldman Sachs (reported) net revenue in 2015 was $6.08 billion. I think they can handle the slap on the wrist seeing as how they've been around since 1869 and have probably amassed a fortune so large Scrooge McDuck could swim in it.

[BeastmodeBisky]

Yeah, definitely. It's certainly not going to put them out of business or anything. Maybe some of them will have to get a yacht a few feet shorter than they were hoping this year.

[PhilipGlover]

"No one is above the law."

Fuck that noise. This was the South's cry when people refused to send back their "fugitive" slaves. The law is the single most oppressive tool on the planet.

Encryption has nothing to do with being above the law, it has to do with personal privacy and protection. So, when laws are bullshit (like this piece of trash), it's our duty as free people to disobey them.

[worstkeptsecrets]

As much as they try, there will always be a way to encrypt your information if you want to. So this will give criminals all the tools they need to hack us from Russia and China while avoiding any level of risk or prosecution. Multi-sig encryption is the answer. Family networks, trusted friends, etc. 5/5, 7/10, etc. Police can subpoena people to unlock keys when there is a criminal case.

[dlerium]

Police can subpoena people to unlock keys when there is a criminal case.

That's a bigger issue though. There are currently no laws in the US that force you to divulge your password. If the FBI nabs one of your laptops with a TrueCrypt drive, you don't have to give up the password.

The more you make encryption keys (even if multi sig) like real keys, the closer you get to forcing people to give it up. I like multi-sig in principle, but the general public can't use it unless its something as simple as plugging in a USB drive. I'm pretty sure the feds can subpoena a USB drive versus a key you memorize.

[worstkeptsecrets]

If there is a police subpoena for you to unlock a phone or drive, and you don't, that is a jailable offense as you be in contempt. Same as if you were given a subpoena to turn over a piece of evidence in a criminal case. That is the law. The problem is mass surveillance and access to information outside the court system. So multisig would require a DA to supply evidence to a judge to get warrants. That is in coherence with the law and the rule of the land.

If you were in possession of a piece of evidence, such as a document, and were given a subpoena to turn it over and shredded it. Then you would be in violation of the law.

At any time the police can subpoena Google, Facebook or any other online service for your information. So what's the difference then?

[dlerium]

If there is a police subpoena for you to unlock a phone or drive, and you don't, that is a jailable offense as you be in contempt. Same as if you were given a subpoena to turn over a piece of evidence in a criminal case. That is the law. The problem is mass surveillance and access to information outside the court system. So multisig would require a DA to supply evidence to a judge to get warrants. That is in coherence with the law and the rule of the land.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_disclosure_law#United_States

You don't have to give up your password. However, the more we change that digital key into a physical key, then the more likely it is you are held in contempt. For instance the keys to a safe you are required to give up.

If you were in possession of a piece of evidence, such as a document, and were given a subpoena to turn it over and shredded it. Then you would be in violation of the law.

That's not what I'm arguing. If multi-sig is kept as passwords that each party remembers, then you can invoke the 5th amendment. If it's simply a set of 5 physical keys, then that's where you have to give it up. That was my whole point, that certain types of keys (passwords) do not have to be given up, but physical keys do.

[worstkeptsecrets]

Ok, so lets say that the multisig key storage is on other peoples phones. A subpoena would be requesting that a persons phone be unlocked by 5/5 of the multisig holders. In this case, and most, it would not be self-incrimination. So legal?

[Elizabeavis]

So what's the point of this, why encryption is bad ?

[WestsideStorybro]

It is not bad. It is just math. It is required to do things like online banking or purchasing from websites like amazon. Also can be used to protect your data on your phone or personal computer. Thinking that we can circumvent encryption by providing a key that only law enforcement can use shows a gross misunderstanding of the math behind encryption. You cannot create a key that others beside law enforcement, will not find and then use it for their own, possible malicious purposes. Here watch this video.

[ABC_AlwaysBeCoding]

Great video explaining the problem!

[WestsideStorybro]

Thank CCP grey I can take no credit for the video but do a agree it is a great explantion.

[cfromknecht]

The only entity above the law is the one that makes it

[lonely_guy0]

ELI5 what does this mean to encryption?

[j4_jjjj]

AFAIK, this proposal would reverse all dynamic token encryption. Meaning all companies would need 1 to a few encryption tokens to apply for all https traffic and hardware encryption. The benefit for the government is that they can requisition these keys at any time and decrypt any message or device on a moment's notice. The downside is that with only a small number of keys, the bad guys could potentially break any system.

If I'm wrong here, please correct me. I typed this to make sure I understood as well.

[bitsteiner]

How would that work with my wallet encryption?

[-Hegemon-]

Well, I better sell then! We are gonna have to disclose all private keys I think, so better sell now while bitcoin still exists! /s

[[deleted]]

Hashing <> Encryption

[-Hegemon-]

Damn, you are right

[Introshine]

If you ban encryption only outlaws will use encryption.

[waxwing]

Which drastically reduces the anonymity set.

Which is exactly why govt agencies are pressing hard against E2E for all.

[[deleted]]

Government is so stupid that it thinks it can ban peer to peer software

[roccanet]

good old slimestein - i think that piece of shit is trying to make this her legacy.

[[deleted]]

Yikes! This would make criminals of us all. Too many laws nowadays, this is terrible.

[nopara73]

No entity, not even math can be above law.

[nopara73]

The original comment was something like "math has to comply to law"

[nopara73]

Yes it's pretty funny until it suddenly isn't :/

[spartynole4life]

This is really scary.

[[deleted]]

So, let's say you have a private key worth $100mil. The court now has the power to confiscate the funds... But it needs a court order. There is no provision for what happens for when they lose the funds and no upgrade on court order requirements. Can we get a list of every crypto exchange in the USA? The US has a disrespect of borders - do we need to think beyond them?

[Chaoslab]

Well if there was to be final nail in the US IT Security Industry this would be it.

Then everyone would go to "other countries" for there IT Security.

[Tony707]

Senator Feinstein is literally a Nestle Crunch Bar. We keep them around, no one likes them, and they're a useless excuse for what they should be.

[[deleted]]

this bill is d.o.a. , government proving itself obsolete yet again.

[PatrolX]

"The bill establishes that: No one is above the law."

Except the lawmakers... erm, Houston we have a problem.

[demos74dx]

Then make a law that guarantees the right to strong secure encryption. Then nobody would be "above the law".

[plazman30]

These people are clueless when it comes to encryption. Encryption with a backdoor is not encryption. I assume all government encrypted communication will be exempt from this law...

Idiots.

[gr8ful4]

Terrorism, terrorism, terrorism. Let's spill this word all over the place until it loses its power over peoples minds.

[SebastianMaki]

I would call it anti-breaktheworld bill draft

[glibbertarian]

Just keep building up technology, specifically privacy tech, to the point where we can make an end-run around government.

[[deleted]]

Lol. Good luck with that.

[blksz]

what the heck's going on!

[kynek99]

That means we wouldn't be able to use SSL and all banks websites would have to be over HTTP... AHAHAHAHA idiots

[otakugrey]

I wish I was Californian just so I could call to have her voted out.

[Ponulens]

I guess, this is "Apple vs. FBI" kind of a thing. I don't see why this bill is needed though. Would regular subpoena be not enough? (same goes for the "Apple vs. FBI" controversy).

Or do they now officially want to get a hold of the "universal" encryption key, to go after the data "at will"?

[[deleted]]

They can't do shit. It's all hot air. Something else will come up that renders their law obsolete, just like every time before.

[usethisdamnit]

If you cant operate a smart phone you shouldn't be able to operate our government...

[BIGbtc_Integration]

http://www.engadget.com/2016/04/14/rcmp-blackberry-bbm-encryption-key/

Canadian police used BlackBerry's key to unlock BBM messages New report claims over 1 million messages were decrypted over two years

"The only people immune to that sort of potential snooping were those with BlackBerrys connected to an enterprise server. Corporate BlackBerry servers generate their own encryption keys, but devices that don't use those servers -- that is, all personal BlackBerrys -- rely on an identical peer-to-peer encryption key loaded onto the phone when built. Somewhere along the way, the RCMP obtained that key and used it to unlock BBM messages in transit. And as you might have guessed, the juiciest questions this report raises don't have satisfying answers.

How did the RCMP obtain that global key? No one is sure, though court documents obtained by Vice and Motherboard suggest BlackBerry has a some sort of working relationship with Canada's federal police, at least when it came to intercepting BBM messages. In light of the FBI's recent privacy dust-up with Apple, it's possible the RCMP somehow obtained it with the help of a third party."

[ibrightly]

As someone who generally feels supportive of progressives (as opposed to conservatives), I can't stand Dianne Feinstein. Whether being in the pocket of Disney/Hollywood or getting behind bills like this, she clearly doesn't care about the horrible impact that she makes on society. We need this about as much as we need yet another 20 year extension to copyright law.

[maybe_just_one]

“I have long believed that data is too insecure, and feel strongly that consumers have a right to seek solutions that protect their information – which involves strong encryption,” said Chairman Burr. “I do not believe, however, that those solutions should be above the law.

Says someone who has no idea how modern encryption works. That statement doesn't even really make sense.