"compliance with court orders act of 2016" could make all encryption illegal in the U.S.

The bill was leaked a few days ago. I didn't really know where to post this. Mods please move or delete if repost.

Wired says, "The Senate’s Draft Encryption Bill Is ‘Ludicrous, Dangerous, Technically Illiterate’"

As Apple battled the FBI for the last two months over the agency’s demands that Apple help crack its own encryption, both the tech community and law enforcement hoped that Congress would weigh in with some sort of compromise solution. Now Congress has spoken on crypto, and privacy advocates say its “solution” is the most extreme stance on encryption yet. On Thursday evening, the draft text of a bill called the “Compliance with Court Orders Act of 2016,” authored by offices of Senators Diane Feinstein and Richard Burr, was published online by the Hill.1 It’s a nine-page piece of legislation that would require people to comply with any authorized court order for data—and if that data is “unintelligible,” the legislation would demand that it be rendered “intelligible.” In other words, the bill would make illegal the sort of user-controlled encryption that’s in every modern iPhone, in all billion devices that run Whatsapp’s messaging service, and in dozens of other tech products. “This basically outlaws end-to-end encryption,” says Joseph Lorenzo Hall, chief technologist at the Center for Democracy and Technology. “It’s effectively the most anti-crypto bill of all anti-crypto bills.”

sources:
www.wired.com...
www.rt.com...
www.patentlyapple.com...

Anyone else got the sinking feeling that things are coming to a head...

Just got that bad feeling that even though im in my mid 40s we may see which conspiracy theory was right in my life time.

a reply to: akiros

This is why I get so irritated with politicians on other issues, like guns, economics or even basic constitutional principle. The ignorant and illiterate write the legislation. This legislation would endanger the use of encryption which would put all of our data out for anyone to snatch out of the internet.

It is strong, independent encryption techniques, hardware, and software that keeps the internet marketplace going. Without it an entire segment, a huge one, of the US Economy and indeed the world, would collapse entirely and pretty much over night.

If politicians tell you its for your safety, IT ISN'T.

I wouldn't worry too much...it's Feinstein. She is known for coming up with un Constitutional bills and hoping to get them pushed through, only to see them die. I don't think they're stupid enough to pass this, as it would be challenged by Apple and every other tech giant on the planet.

a reply to: DAVID64

I wouldn't worry too much...it's Feinstein.

There isn't a bit of liberty that she's seen that she likes.

I have paid some attention to this entire thing with the FBI and Apple.

Apple wants the legislature to pass a law, instead of complying and thus creating a backdoor for exploitation.

Now here is what the argument will be:

Is computer code considered a language and thus protected speech or something else? That is what any prospective law that will have to deal with and survive the courts interpretation on such. There is legal precedence that is on the books already that states such, Bernstein v. US Department of Justice. The bottom line is that computer code is considered speech.

Now if the Senate manages to pass this law and it is determined that it is language and it can be restricted, then watch out as lawmakers will use to force the issue. It should be interesting to see if it does pass and ultimately how the court case will play oot.

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: DAVID64

I wouldn't worry too much...it's Feinstein.

There isn't a bit of liberty that she's seen that she likes.

I hope someone beats her to death with a dead horse.

originally posted by: sdcigarpig
I have paid some attention to this entire thing with the FBI and Apple.

Apple wants the legislature to pass a law, instead of complying and thus creating a backdoor for exploitation.

Now here is what the argument will be:

Is computer code considered a language and thus protected speech or something else? That is what any prospective law that will have to deal with and survive the courts interpretation on such. There is legal precedence that is on the books already that states such, Bernstein v. US Department of Justice. The bottom line is that computer code is considered speech.

Now if the Senate manages to pass this law and it is determined that it is language and it can be restricted, then watch out as lawmakers will use to force the issue. It should be interesting to see if it does pass and ultimately how the court case will play oot.

Cigarpig nailed it

Much like taxes and the law people in government and the rich will find away around this..

How about a million man march on Washington ....celebrating the Second amendment.....
If we had the balls we could change the government back to the old Constitutional model....that simple...

a reply to: akiros

You can't have a secure military or intelligence community without encryption. You certainly can't have a secure cashless banking system without encryption. Wonder what the game is here or are they just simply imbeciles and like to shoot each other in the foot?

What was it Einstein said, "I know two things that are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. I'm just not sure about the universe" to paraphrase a bit ;-)

Cheers - Dave

a reply to: akiros

Oh, it's authored by the offices of Feinstein. That explains everything

It seems this is the first legislative effort to result from the FBI hoax regarding unlocking the phone involved in the staged events at San Bernardino. The ulterior motive becomes more apparent.

Anyone find it odd how the Senate, or all of congress for that matter, can jump on a bill so quickly when it comes to the government not getting what it wants, but drags and ignores when it pertains to citizens?

Maybe it's just me

Also, with the encryption required by the government to protect their classified documents...

Oh, I see now. They just don't want normal citizens to have it.

originally posted by: Brotherman

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: DAVID64

I wouldn't worry too much...it's Feinstein.

There isn't a bit of liberty that she's seen that she likes.

I hope someone beats her to death with a dead horse.

Perhaps the horse she rides around on?

originally posted by: FamCore

originally posted by: sdcigarpig
I have paid some attention to this entire thing with the FBI and Apple.

Apple wants the legislature to pass a law, instead of complying and thus creating a backdoor for exploitation.

Now here is what the argument will be:

Is computer code considered a language and thus protected speech or something else? That is what any prospective law that will have to deal with and survive the courts interpretation on such. There is legal precedence that is on the books already that states such, Bernstein v. US Department of Justice. The bottom line is that computer code is considered speech.

Now if the Senate manages to pass this law and it is determined that it is language and it can be restricted, then watch out as lawmakers will use to force the issue. It should be interesting to see if it does pass and ultimately how the court case will play oot.

Cigarpig nailed it

Read about that case. A different issue.

You will decrypt, or else!!!

originally posted by: sdcigarpig
I have paid some attention to this entire thing with the FBI and Apple.

Apple wants the legislature to pass a law, instead of complying and thus creating a backdoor for exploitation.

Now here is what the argument will be:

Is computer code considered a language and thus protected speech or something else? That is what any prospective law that will have to deal with and survive the courts interpretation on such. There is legal precedence that is on the books already that states such, Bernstein v. US Department of Justice. The bottom line is that computer code is considered speech.

Now if the Senate manages to pass this law and it is determined that it is language and it can be restricted, then watch out as lawmakers will use to force the issue. It should be interesting to see if it does pass and ultimately how the court case will play oot.

Classify encryption as a weapon and protect it under the 2nd.

They don't know what they're talking about. Encryption is ciphertext which is codes. All modern technology is based on codes. What they don't seem to understand is there are malicious code and non malicious codes.

While they're at it, I hope they abolishes all evil, all crime.....and natural disasters. It would really help us little people out.

Classify encryption as a weapon and protect it under the 2nd.

We've been there, as for as munitions.

The export of cryptographic technology and devices from the United States was severely restricted by U.S. law until 1992, but was gradually eased until 2000; some restrictions still remain.

As of 2009, non-military cryptography exports from the U.S. are controlled by the Department of Commerce's Bureau of Industry and Security. Some restrictions still exist, even for mass market products, particularly with regard to export to "rogue states" and terrorist organizations.

Militarized encryption equipment, TEMPEST-approved electronics, custom cryptographic software, and even cryptographic consulting services still require an export license.

Furthermore, encryption registration with the BIS is required for the export of "mass market encryption commodities, software and components with encryption exceeding 64 bits".

In addition, other items require a one-time review by, or notification to, BIS prior to export to most countries. For instance, the BIS must be notified before open-source cryptographic software is made publicly available on the Internet, though no review is required.

Link

I remember the early version of PGP downloads at MIT having restriction to the US.