Congressional Reps Submit Bill Banning Encryption Bans
from the [placard]-BAN-THE-BAN-[/end-placard] dept
Legislators in two states have proposed (largely unworkable) bans on the sale of encrypted phones, citing (of course) concerns about all the criminals who might get away with something if law enforcement can't have near immediate access to the entire contents of their phones.
In reaction to these stupid bills, national legislators have stepped up to offer their own counterpunch: a nationwide ban on encryption bans. The Daily Dot's Kevin Collier has the details.
Congressmen Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) and Blake Farenthold (R-Texas) have introduced what they call the Ensuring National Constitutional Rights of Your Private Telecommunications (ENCRYPT) Act of 2016. It’s an attempt, Lieu and Farenthold wrote in a letter to their colleagues, to address “[c]oncerns over the privacy, security and technological feasibility of a ‘backdoor’ into encrypted devices for the government and law enforcement” by making encryption a federal issue and keeping individual states from trying to ban it.Update: We've been informed that it's not just Lieu and Farenthold, but also Reps. Suzan Delbene and Mike Bishop. Not only would such bans/backdoors make device usage less safe for users, but the lack of unified stance on phone encryption would turn phone sales in the US into a logistical nightmare, to the detriment of all involved.
“We are deeply concerned,” Lieu told the Daily Dot in a phone interview, “that a patchwork system with different encryption requirements in every state would not only undermine national security—it would also threaten the competitiveness of American companies and dampen innovation.”Lieu, as one of the few representatives with a background in computer science, is also one of the few who has been bold enough to refer to FBI director James Comey's ongoing anti-encryption efforts as "stupid."
Whether this will go anywhere remains to be seen. It would appear few legislators are willing -- at least as this point -- to tell the FBI to stop asking for backdoors or bans. Alarmingly, despite the ongoing discussion bringing more evidence to the surface that such actions are not only bad ideas, but pretty much impossible to implement without doing away with encryption entirely, it seems like more legislators are moving towards the FBI's line of thinking.
Unfortunately, that is often the nature of the political business, where fear nearly always trumps rational thinking. For too many, it's perfectly acceptable that thousands of phone users be left open to attacks than one criminal suspect go free.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: blake farenthold, encrypt act, encryption, encryption bans, going dark, ted lieu
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Halfway there...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Halfway there...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I have an idea
>>backdoors to encryption technologies.
Yeah, we could put it into a catch-all amendment that would cover something like, oh, maybe 'unreasonable search and seizure?' Then, any time a new means of legitimate communication or exchange protection would be protected, even though the determined could twist any such unanticipated means to illegitimate purposes. Maybe we could call it something like The Fourth Amendment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I have an idea
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Halfway there...
While I appreciate the sentiment, you would need the wording to be a lot broader than that, and more general.
Of course, there's always the problem of proving that feature X is NOT a backdoor. And what would happen if a backdoor was discovered after the fact?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Halfway there...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Halfway there...
The MPAA getting a back door implemented so they can determine whether any encrypted communications might be . . . (OMG!!!) Puracy!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Halfway there...
Banning backdoors runs into a critical problem that is identical to mandating backdoors: you're making certain kinds of math illegal. I should be able to create and implement my own crypto scheme with a backdoor if I want. What would be the rationale for the ban?
The problem is in mandating backdoors, and if the existence of backdoors is kept a secret, then there is the additional problem of fraud.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Halfway there...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Because this is the poster child for the "interstate commerce" clause in the constitution. That is because, as you may be surprised to discover, very few states that have their own mobile phone manufacturing industries.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I would say that regulating them merely because the phones themselves might be manufactured in one state and shipped to another would be a stretch of the interstate commerce powers. I mean, that applies to just about every product.
But, more importantly, states don't have their own telephone system not connected to the rest of the country. Mobile phones are by their very nature interstate. And if a state makes one side of the communication insecure, it makes the entire communication insecure, including for the person in the other state. So federal regulations are justified in my opinion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Other things that qualify as "interstate commerce", according the the federal government:
1. Raising grain on your own land to feed your own cattle (Wickard v. Filburn)
2. Growing pot in your own house to smoke yourself (Gonzales v. Raich)
3. Possessing a gun in a school zone (United States v. Lopez)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
just because your personal information is transported by electron instead of paper means nothing.
And since the states must follow the constitution this problem is technically already settled. Well for the people that can comprehend English that is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Encryption Ban (or not)
Just look how fast many encryption schemes have been opened with or without an opendoor.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
See any and all criticisms of feminism/male-hatred means that you are some abusive and violent person. Hell, feminists could demand to eat a baby on TV and anyone who didn't want to watch that would be automatically accused of hating ALL women. As a female, even I get tired of the 24/7 media coverage about how bad males are and that they should be ashamed of simply being born without a vagina and as a whole, women don't like to take responsibility and by giving them attention with rubbish articles like this one you can bet that they somehow become even more oppressed.
Now you can date whoever you want but most men won't date feminist because no all me like taking a strap-on while wearing assless leather chaps such as I suspect this author does.
Man = Evil and Women = Blameless -- NBC
Man = Evil and Women = Blameless -- FOX
Man = Evil and Women = Blameless -- CNN
Man = Evil and Women = Blameless -- ABC
Man = Evil and Women = Blameless -- CBS
Man = Evil and Women = Blameless -- Tumblr
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I am a male and I am aligned with feminist views.
There are, however, females that hate men which are probably better called female chauvinist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Any state or federal congressman who submits a stupid bill is slapped silly until they get some sense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But where does it stop?
Now there is this nationwide ban on encryption bans.
But next there will be a ban on nationwide bans on encryption bans.
And then a ban on that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You don't need a complete education in computers and how they work, to understand why banning or backdooring encryption is bad. Everyone with even basic knowledge and maybe a couple of hours of further explaining or reading, should be able to get this. You don't need to know how encryption works in detail to get a broad picture.
I believe that with some luck and a couple of special tutors, even a politician should be able to learn this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You say you want a Revolution?
We're 180º from where we started, but not in the direction we thought.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]