“Today, legislators published an official draft of a controversial new encryption bill, a measure seeking to compel company assistance in decrypting private communications in the wake of the San Bernardino case,” Russell Brandom reports for The Verge. “Dubbed the Compliance with Court Orders Act of 2016, the official text is slightly modified from the version that leaked last week, but contains many of the same provisions that had infuriated privacy activists last week, including a broad view of the information providers would be expected to turn over upon request.”
“So far, technology and privacy groups have been hostile to the bill, including the Software Alliance, the App Association, and the ITIF,” Brandom reports. “The ACLU called the earlier draft ‘a clear threat to everyone’s privacy and security.’ If the bill does pass, the Electronic Frontier Foundation has pledged a legal effort that would keep the measures ‘tied up in the courts for years.'”
“But the most vocal opposition has come from within Congress itself,” Brandom reports. “Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) went so far as to pledge a filibuster of the bill if it reaches the Senate floor.”
This anti-encryption bill would effectively outlaw tech that Americans use to protect themselves.
— Ron Wyden (@RonWyden) April 13, 2016
If this dangerous anti-encryption legislation reaches the Senate floor, I will filibuster it. Period.
— Ron Wyden (@RonWyden) April 13, 2016
Brandom reports, “‘No entity or individual is above the law,’ said Sen. Diane [sic] Feinstein (D-CA) in a statement.”
MacDailyNews Take: Does that also include you and your husband, Richard C. Blum, who profited from government contracts resulting from legislation that you introduced involving billions of dollars of taxpayers’ money, Dianne? Can you say “conflict of interest?” How about “nepotism?”
Read more in the full article here.
MacDailyNews Take: Again, it’s our hope that Congress will listen to the few techie members they have and not follow the whims of vapid career politicians like Dianne “Conflict of Interest” Feinstein and Richard Burr who are confused at best and traitors at worst.
SEE ALSO:
U.S. Senate panel releases draft of controversial bill that would break encryption – April 13, 2016
Apple’s fight with U.S. government over privacy enters a new round – April 12, 2016
Dianne Feinstein’s response to Apple-FBI dispute is bad for privacy, security – April 8, 2016
White House declines to support legislation to defeat strong encryption – April 7, 2016
U.S. Senator Wyden pledges to fight limits on encryption – March 31, 2016
Apple: ‘Government misunderstands the technology’ involved in demanding they decrypt an iPhone – March 16, 2016
U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham finally talks to tech experts, switches side to Apple vs. FBI – March 15, 2016
Obama pushes for iPhone back door; Congressman Issa blasts Obama’s ‘fundamental lack of understanding’ – March 12, 2016
California Democrat Diane Feinstein backs U.S. government overreach over Apple – March 10, 2016
U.S. Congressman Darrell Issa: The FBI should try to unlock shooter’s iPhone without Apple’s help – March 2, 2016
U.S. Representative Darrell Issa on Apple vs. FBI: Very scary when your government wants to know more about you – February 24, 2016
Wyden gets it. As for Burr and Feinstein, I don’t know if they’re ignorant or just don’t give a damn.
We don’t always agree, but sometimes I am glad he is my Senator…
Widen is also my Senator and even though I can’t stomach most of the Ds who run the State of Oregon, Wyden is an exception and always gets my vote.
I don’t care for procedural tactics such as filibusters, even if the end result coincides with my views. I would much prefer that measures as ill-conceived as this one are defeated by reasoned arguments.
If the bill fails by means of a procedural device, it’s proponents will feel that it might have succeeded if it wasn’t for one or two people obstructing it, but if it is soundly defeated by force of argument, there is no escaping the fact that it was a bad idea.
Of course it does depend on there being enough people who aren’t stupid. With politicians, that’s not something that can be taken for granted.
Filibuster is a legitimate parliamentary procedure, which has been around for over 100 years… maybe way over.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster
There is a counter-balancing procedure, cloture, which can be invoked if enough people support moving ahead on a piece of legislation.
I think in legislation like this, any tactic which prevents its passage should be used. People need time to understand the implication and ramifications of the legislation they are voting for. If a filibuster gives time for reflection, that’s a good outcome.
“reasoned argument” “US Senate” “best interest of the public”
One of these things is not like the others.
Wyden, except for his stupid support for the Trans-Pacific Partnership a.k.a. Southern Hemisphere American Free Trade Agreement (SHAFTA), he is usually a good guy on many issues. DiFi is a corrupt grifter who except for abortion and GLBTQ rights is a Republican in drag.
Too bad DiFi did not follow Ms Boxer and announce her retirement.