Lawmakers propose to create prize competition to award the creation of secure backdoored crypto.
No word yet on whether they will also award techies for discovering unicorns, Sasquatch, or the Loch Ness Monster. https://t.co/MS4OgVkM0i
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) and U.S. Senators Tom Cotton (R-Arkansas) and Marsha Blackburn (R-Tennessee) today introduced the Lawful Access to Encrypted Data Act…
Gosh, there's something in common with the three Senators who are trying to cram this bill down our throats, but I can't quite put my finger on it.
Don't think of it as partisinal. Both groups are in cahoots behind the scenes; left-leaning senators have voted for similar acts in the past, and many senators can be bought out for as low as $1000. The pendulum shall swing, give it time.
That's not to say that this act isn't a horrific slice to the throat of privacy; fuck any single individual who thinks this deserves their stamp of approval with a damned trident.
If it happens, the would lose many European customers.
It's more likely that they'll manufacture a phone just for the USA while keeping the current FileVault only for exportation; Or they may relocate to another country.
Edit: Or maybe they'll pressure European states to pass the same bills (with the new COVID-tracing apps and the like that are appearing, people are getting used to less privacy and after some years they won't care as much as before...)
Well I have to see if all European countries will let it pressure in equivalents of the American bills. Privacy is a valuable good here. And for those apps. We are not obligated to install them. You can if you like. Europe ain’t China.
Sure they don't. They're just trying to codify what has already been done (Previously, through secret courts and gag orders). If you're on windows, use Veracrypt. There are few, if any, usecases (for personal use) where bitlocker is preferrable to Veracrypt. Organizational use, on the other hand, is a different story, but that's an entirely different adversarial risk and attack surface considerations.
Bitlocker is Microsoft, and as far as I'm concerned, less than useless. I also don't care about the country of origin for a software dev for open source software (Not to conflate OSS for security, FWIW, and not to say that closed source software cannot be secure. OSS allows any person with programming knowledge to say "No thank you" to disgusting laws and continue using proper encryption)
And to add onto this, if you're switching services, it's a good idea to avoid the 14 eyes countries as well as countries with key disclosure laws as outlined in the link below
The LAED Act is designed to distract you from the Earn It act.
The sponsors want you to focus on the worse bill, the LAED Act, so they can pass the bill they intended and which already has popular opposition.
It’s a magic trick of misdirection. They try to make you look at the new, shiny bad bill in their left hand to distract you from the also bad bill in their right hand that already had your attention. Now, while you are distracted, rather than sliding a card under their sleeve, they destroy privacy.
Don’t let the LAED Act distract you from the Earn It act, that’s what privacy opponents want. The goal is to block both.
I agree fully. This is kind of similar to what they did with SOPA and PIPA (Then ACTA or some shit, I kind of lost the plot). There were massive internet protests for those, think we could try to stir up the same kind of focus again?
It also means someone overseas couldn’t buy an iPhone because iOS can’t support the encryption their non us bank is required to use.
They’d have to use a non US fork of android designed for the rest of the world that still uses real encryption.
This would pretty much kill foreign growth for American tech companies.
Yuh huh, sure. Sure.
Wrong, though. Plenty of protestors can be seen without masks going as far back as early June. Did **most** protestors wear masks? Yep. Does that matter? **Nope**! The masks protect others, not you. **You are not the hero**, and 1 person not wearing their mask is a huge risk to others.
What do you know? The black lives matter protests starting date and the rise in corona virus cases (3 week lag, as to be expected) correlate. Must be the bars.
I'd like to see these stats, though. Very interested!
The incubation period is **0.5 - 2 weeks**, not three.
My job isn't to educate you, but here's one article:
**Oh noes! I bumped a 3 instead of a 2! My whole point is ruined! Noooooo!**
Oh, wait, no it isn't!
>My job isn't to educate you, but here's one article:
Said every person who was mad their other points were wrong, ever.
The cities with the largest protests haven't seen spikes. It's been 1 month now. So no, they aren't a major vector. However, places that are more likely to not believe masks work (we all know why they believe that) have seen spikes, e.g. Texas and Florida.
And you're the one complaining about people being sheep who fall prey to disinfo.
Do you know how Hong Kong and co have managed to stop the spread? By wearing masks. Because they work.
\> The cities with the largest protests haven't seen spikes.
Look at the graph I posted. Seattle has. Minneapolis has. Orange county has. St lois has. LA has. Boston has. Miami has. New York has. Buttfuck Utah has. Middle of nowhere Nebraska has. Middle of nowhere montana has. Kentucky, Mass, Minnesota all reopened late, but they're having spikes around protest areas. Must be a coinkydink.
Guess what these places have in common? It isn't trying to re-open early! That's right, it's BLM protests.
Were Seattle and Minneapolis trying to re-open early? Also, where's that study I asked for?
**I posit that large crowds are vectors for disease. Why does this bother you?**
>The cities with the largest protests haven't seen spikes.
*looks at chart of protests*
*Looks at cities with spikes*
>So no, they aren't a major vector.
Yes, they are. Holy shit man, large crowds are totally a fucking vector for disease.
>However, places that are more likely to not believe masks work (we all know why they believe that) have seen spikes, e.g. Texas and Florida.
You going to post that study?
>And you're the one complaining about people being sheep who fall prey to disinfo.
Please point to where I said that?
>Do you know how Hong Kong and co have managed to stop the spread? By wearing masks. Because they work.
Are you going to post that study, or?... I never said they don't work. **I said surgical masks do not protect you, they protect those around you.**
The whole world could downvote me, you're still wrong. Ta!
The man can't even read what I'm saying and believes that large crowds aren't a major vector for disease. He argued against things I never said, and won't provide the study his opinion is based on. His opinion is functionally worthless.
The cities with large protests have not been seeing those spikes so much. New York, Minneaopolis etc. have held relatively steady. The big spikes have primarily been located in areas that were not large hubs of protests. Not to say protesting has had no effect, but the evidence points to a very limited one if that. In comparison to say the decision to reopen bars before we’d even peaked. There’s been a much stronger correlation between places now spiking and those that rushed ahead with early and rash reopening against all advice. Who would’ve thought? Also, masks do make a difference and being outside helps as well.
Yuh huh. Sure. That must be it.
[Oh, wait. The size of the protest larfely correlates with the size of the outbreak! And would you look at that, it's consistent across the country, even in backwoods, buttfuck egypt, up shit creek.](https://i.imgur.com/qrX3Jbk.png)
You're wrong from where I'm standing. However, I'm not against the idea that maybe it's just big cities. Could you post those studies for me?
Could you also show me the correlation between places that reopened early and places that are having spikes? Arizona had many protests and is going under lockdown again. Did they rush their reopening? I'm not familiar with aerzonian politics.
Edit: [Missed some spots. Have some more before bed](https://i.imgur.com/RfitUF7.png). Must be a wacky coincidence of some sort, although there's still more that I can see at a quick glance.
Night! Sleep tight, don't let corona bite. I'll be interested in reading the methodology of the studies you post while I'm sleeping. I admit that correlation does not equal causation and that red circles are not a scientific study. Still, it does not hurt one to seek out correlation when one does not conflate correlation with cuasation!
While most major BLM protest appear to correlate with an outbreak, there are edge case outbreaks outbreaks that do not correlate with a protest (See: NE Nevada, Rural wyoming, NW texas, N Ill, to name a few)
Funnily enough, the same type of map is used by those trying to push the conspiracy that 5G cellular towers cause Coronavirus. Now I'm curious where you fit on that false notion.
If only there were a well-known axiom that anyone who's ever taken a high school statistics class had drummed into their head about correlations and causations… *Hmmm.*
>Funnily enough, the same type of map is used by those trying to push the conspiracy that 5G cellular towers cause Coronavirus. Now I'm curious where you fit on that false notion.
**The above is a technique called poisoning the well.**
To answer the question:** No, I do not I'm old enough to remember the same huffle about cell towers n shit back in 2000** It's horseshit.
(The only comeplling studies I read regarding their negative effects re. cell towers, however, located individuals who lived within hundreds of feet of cell towers across the country and did find a significant cancer rates above the national average, across race, gender, age. However, analysis much farther out (Even to 10,000 feet) fared much better. Make of that what you will.)
>If only there were a well-known axiom that **anyone who's ever taken a high school statistics class** had drummed into their head about correlations and causations… Hmmm.
Also poisoning the well. I literally mentioned that I was not conflating correlation with causation and only seeked to make a casual link. I asked that a study may be provided so that I can read an argument against the smaller protests in BFE counties correlating to breakouts; that I was swayable, while the opposite (I.e., there do not seem to be BLM protests near every outbreak, but but most protests are near an outbreak), but none was provided.
Why are you against asking questions?
Oh, look, Mr "I'm not a sheep like you and I believe black people shouldn't have right", here are a few more sources for you to look at:
But I'm sure you believe all those scientists are part of the DEEP STATE ANTEEEEEEEEFA SPONSORED BY BILL GATES' VACCINE MONEY AND GEROGE SOROS' INSTITUTE WHO ALL HAVE 5G POWERED AUTISM too so...... Don't know why I'm wasting my time.
>Oh, look, Mr "I'm not a sheep like you and I believe black people shouldn't have right"
Are you okay? Please calm down, miss! I never said that. Are you okay? Do you need water? Being out in that field all day must make you thirsty!
My friend, the two images I showed you demonstrate that those articles are incorrect. They keep referencing a study but you have not linked it. I think everyone is familiar with [exaggeractions](https://xkcd.com/882/) and mischaracterizations of science titles. Could you provide the study that you and these articles are referencing, please? I know it's not your job to educate me, but it's not my job to prove your point.
For example, I recall a study posted on twitter which **specifically** did not test protest participants when I bothered to read it. The methodology seems flawed, to say the least. How can you be aware that the protestors do not have a higher amount of the virus when you're going out of your way not to test them?
The CNN article, for example, cites a passage that suggests that the findings are not absolute:
"Our findings suggest that any direct decrease in social distancing among the subset of the population participating in the protests is more than offset by increasing social distancing behavior among others who may choose to shelter-at-home and circumvent public places while the protests are underway," the report reads."
Moreover, you can clearly see a lack of orderly social distancing. Is it being praticed a good amount! Yep! Is it perfect? Impossible at a protest, you'd know that if you ever left your chair. People in line outside a store can't seem to do it, runners can't seem to do it, and it only takes one idiot who can't put his fucking mask on right.
I ponder if this study and the ones mentioned are one in the same? **What study did *you* read friend? That's the one I want to hear.** If you'd like to point to one of the studies mentioned in the article, and link it for me, I'd be happy to read it! But it's not my job to prove your point, again. I've demonstrated more "evidence" than you so far.
>DEEP STATE ANTEEEEEEEEFA
Who mentioned the deep state or antifa? Anyone who's voted as part of a club understands the "deep state:" connections between friends who want to work to their own benefit, against another group of buddies. Groups within groups, essentially. **I believe this is poisoning the well.**
>Don't know why I'm wasting my time.
Why are you so mad? I believe I've upset you. You don't seem to actually be reading what I'm writing. Am I having a stroke? Are you having a stroke? Someone here's having a stroke, and I think it's you, Mrs.
I not familiar enough with the law so please correct me if I'm wrong but the 4th amendment protects against unlawful searches and seizures this bill requires a warrant before accessing data but the creators of the bill does not understand or consider the unintended consequences that creating a means to unlock encrypted data will have, i.e weak security.
How would the 4th amendment apply here besides needing a warrant?
Here is some more information about the bill https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/06/senates-new-anti-encryption-bill-even-worse-earn-it-and-thats-saying-something
I'm very ignorant on this topic but would it be possible to have specific encryption for each device? So to speak an Ottendorf Cipher specific to each one. A portion of background radiation noise that is assigned to each device so that specific devices could be unlocked while keeping the security of all the rest? But maybe that would not help since security is useless if the item cannot communicate with other devices.
Unfortunately, this is nothing new and goes back to the days of the clipper chip and the classification of certain American crypto as export-controlled (like missiles). I think it also has as much to do with the vendetta many of these senators have against big tech for a whole host of other reasons. On the upside, I don't think it has a very good chance of becoming law. I don't see it as much of a bipartisan issue, especially when you consider that the law enforcement / government agencies capable of backdooring encrypted data might be doing so at the behest of a Trump-like administration or an agency director like Keith Alexander. Moreover, the lobbying arm of big tech, who obviously has a keen interest in never seeing something like this become law, is still fairly strong in Washington. AND you have groups like the EFF fighting s**t like this for reasons that are less morally ambiguous. From the perspective of senators like Graham and Cotton, I think they know it has little hope of becoming law and this whole spectacle is a political play intended to garner support by coloring the perception of the opposition.
I do find it ironic how these stalwart champions of the right, who are so quick to defend the the rights of the individual when it comes to gun ownership in the face of government overreach, are then so easily willing to sacrifice that same liberty when it comes to information and privacy. Why is it in that case the government suddenly knows best?
The scariest thing about this is that it simultaneously destroys any concept of privacy from the state while also exposing the entire population to huge vulnerabilities.
To give you a really poor analogy, this would be like the state saying they want a skeleton key for your house and a special combination for every safe that always works. So now your locks and your safes are all introducing a lot more risk but what makes it worse is that you won't know if you've been violated by the state, you won't know if the vulnerability has been exploited by someone else either, until it's too late.
There is literally no reason for this. I sympathize with a legal systems frustrations with this tech, but this is not a solution. It's trying to force the world to look the way it once did in a way that causes far more problems than it solves. The Pandoras box of encryption has been opened, we cannot go backward.
The door analogy really does a disservice when discussing encryption.
If you have a back door that is an actual back door, it is possible make it secure, because while you can not take away a key from somebody that you have given it too, at any time you can call the locksmith to rekey the door.
In the context of computer security a back door is the same as an insecure system and the analogy does not hold.
This bill want to enable law enforcement the ability to access to encrypted, if there is a master key or backdoor to unlock your encrypted data your information is not longer secure. You will not be able to call the locksmith because in this case you will not own the lock, you might be provided with a key but someone else will still have the masterkey.
Right. At first, the encryption will probably be most effective. State actors will likely find the backdoor first, but it will still be effective in preventing some run of the mill cybercrime for a while. Then eventually the backdoor will be found by some random person and they will sell it for a while and it will still be a little effective, but not protection. Eventually, it will be available to anyone who looks for it like DVD encryption.
Yes any nation state hackers with unlimited resources will work on getting access it will just be a matter of time before they get access but once they do we wont know they will just quietly listen in without anyone knowing.
Keeping peoples data secure is already a big issue just look at all the data breaches that happens, Target, Equifax, etc now you are going to make it even less secure by having to create a backdoor if you gave more than a million subscribers or sold units.
The funny thing is, the government spying on citizens without a warrant is what popularized this technology with consumers to begin with. So, are we really going to trust them to get a warrant next time?