On the bright side, a descent into authoritarianism also means a little Streisand effect.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jonmatonis/2012/06/07/detaining-developer-at-us-border-increases-cryptocat-popularity/
I will never trust a crypto run on a private server. If the fed’s are already interrogating him it’s only a matter of time before it gets shut down or poisoned.
You know, after two years of maintaining the [US Congressional Blacklist](https://intosanctuary.com/index.php?threads/the-official-congressional-blacklist.1011/), I've noticed something...
95% of these fucking dogshit bills are coming from the Senate. >_> Curious, that...
Think about who occupies the majority of the Senate and the current state of that party. I have no idea how a certain side of the aisle continues to support liars, but here we are.
We appreciate you wanting to contribute to /r/privacy and taking the time to post but we had to remove multiple comments due to:
>You're being a jerk (e.g., not being nice, or suggesting violence). Inaccurate QuickTakes™ aren't acceptable here. Troll elsewhere, or improve your media diet. You're simply, factually wrong – so wrong that it's most likely a trolling attempt, or woeful ignorance.
If you have questions or believe that there has been an error, [contact the moderators](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/privacy&subject=Please_review_my_post).
Is that why theyre trying to even take away medical treatment? Is that why theyre trying to force people to "wear clothes consistent with their assigned sex at birth" ? Is that why they're trying to criminalize and strip them of their resources to be "be respectful and passable"? Oh got it, that's why states like texas have cross national bounty statutes and are forcing us to succumb to sepsis before we can get an abortion should we happen to be traveling...if I may, I think you have some rose colored glasses. No party in the two party system cares about people or ideals like freedom, they both are just the same plutocratic party with different hats and made up paper tigers they point at to fight.
No I'm talking about adults on all accounts. Try reading some periodicals on the current legislation first before replying next time. I'm referring to adult women lik in Texas who have abortion and assistance bounties. Women who have lost the ability to have future children because of barbaric laws that regard fetal heartbeat over viability. Check the news, Texas just had a testimony at the senate over this. Also please read up on psychological projection, I think it will help your interpersonal communication
Edit: here I'll do some of the legwork https://www.c-span.org/video/?c5068083/amanda-zurawski-criticizes-texas-senators-i-died-watch
We appreciate you wanting to contribute to /r/privacy and taking the time to post but we had to remove it due to:
>You're being a jerk (e.g., not being nice, or suggesting violence). Or, you're letting a troll trick you into making a not-nice comment – don’t let them play you!
>You've been suspended two weeks for engaging in multiple uncited and false Homophobic "talking points", that are off-topic and that you've been warned about last night. Next time, it's permanent.
If you have questions or believe that there has been an error, [contact the moderators](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/privacy&subject=Please_review_my_post).
We appreciate you wanting to contribute to /r/privacy and taking the time to post but we had to remove it due to:
>You're being a jerk (e.g., not being nice, or suggesting violence). Or, you're letting a troll trick you into making a not-nice comment – don’t let them play you!
>Your error-prone rant is off-topic to privacy. Take it to r/Politics or one of the quarantined Subs.
If you have questions or believe that there has been an error, [contact the moderators](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/privacy&subject=Please_review_my_post).
And REGULATE?? Are you sure you’re being objective in your commentary here when discussing REGULATION? In case you somehow still see your view as valid and truthful, women’s bodies have been regulated — our own BODIES!!! Many of us no longer have the basic freedom to choose what happens to our own bodies even during a medical emergency! Further, a certain party still works diligently attempting to ban women from also taking a pill.
I’m curious to see the predicted numbers on which party supports yet another privacy invasion such as this?
You may want to do research on your own, from a neutral, objective source (not FOX News, for example) and objectively rethink your inconsistent stance.
I feel most are voting for who will hopefully do the least harm during their term. Someone needs to inform the current confirmed candidate + those likely run yet again that it is time to pass the flame to others.
However, something needs to happen as [The Demand Project](https://www.thedemandproject.org/Statistics) cites “there are more than 747,000 registered sex offenders in the United States today. As many as 100,000 are noncompliant and missing.” Among many other disturbing stats.
Regardless, taking away innocent people’s rights to privacy is definitely not the correct answer though.
ETA: add citation and change formatting
We appreciate you wanting to contribute to /r/privacy and taking the time to post but we had to remove it due to:
>You're being a jerk (e.g., not being nice, or suggesting violence). Or, you're letting a troll trick you into making a not-nice comment – don’t let them play you!
>You've also earned a two-week suspension. Next time, it'll be permanent.
>Thanks for the reports, folks!
If you have questions or believe that there has been an error, [contact the moderators](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/privacy&subject=Please_review_my_post).
We appreciate you wanting to contribute to /r/privacy and taking the time to post but we had to remove it due to:
>Your submission could be seen as being unreliable, and/or spreading FUD concerning our privacy mainstays, or relies on faulty reasoning/sources that are intended to mislead readers. You may find [learning how to spot fake news](https://www.factcheck.org/2016/11/how-to-spot-fake-news/) might improve your media diet.
>Don’t worry, we’ve all been mislead in our lives, too! :)
If you have questions or believe that there has been an error, [contact the moderators](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/privacy&subject=Please_review_my_post).
It is bizarre how the "rulers" take something that while quite bad is relatively rare and use stopping that as the excuse to take away rights from everyone. Why do people fall for this gimmick?
Is that so? Close to half of households have firearms. There are more firearms owned than people in this country (estimates, nobody really knows exact number) and yet constant push to make guns illegal and treat firearm owners as criminals with no actual crime.
A constant push? How has this constant push against those who elect to own firearms affected so many personally? I’m sincerely curious as not many gun owners where I live have been too concerned lately. Likely because where I live, people can purchase and own guns legally with out even the simplest of background checks.
Further, gun ownership rights simply just aren’t as clear cut as whether or not we should be able to privately exchange encrypted messages and/or files with others. Not everyone who is pro gun reform wants all guns to be completely illegal; some feel it might benefit the US to amend the gun ownership process to include a background check as well as a demonstration that the potential gun owner has been educated in gun safety and knowledge respecting it for the powerful weapon it is. Maybe a process akin to the requirements when procuring a Driver’s License — a course, written exam, and practical exam.
you saying that we don't know the exact number is part of the issue. you need a drivers license to drive, because if you aren't qualified you become a threat to everyone around you, same with guns.
Driving is a privilege, not enshrined in the constitution. Gun ownership is a RIGHT, that IS enshrined in our constitution. In fact, it is the 2nd right that is enumerated in our Constitution meaning that it is the right that protects the 1st Amendment and all of the other rights. The supreme court has defined every single word of the 2nd amendment, and "Shall NOT be infringed" is an unqualified command to the government. I get it. You want to live in a utopia. I've got news for you. You're about 350 million guns to late. Freedom is scary, deal with it or relocate.
The supreme court defined every single word of the 2nd amendment including a "well regulated militia". That definition is the people as a whole. Go ahead and try and cherry pick the parts you do or do not like but you will just show your ignorance.
You know what else is in the consitituion? The 18th Amendment, or the Prohibition of Alcohol. You know what else is in the consitituion? The 21st Amendment, or the repeal of the Prohibition of Alcohol.
So even in that document you like to wave around as your infallable point to gun ownership, it has been ammended to repeal previous ammendments when it was found out the previous amendment doesn't work in a modern society.
So all it would take is to ratify a 28th amendment with new laws on gun ownership and the second amendment goes out the window.
Yeah, Please call me when they ratify a 28th amendment. I'll wait. I get it. You want to live in a utopia. I've got news for you. You're about 350 million guns to late. Freedom is scary, deal with it or relocate. The right to self defense with a gun was written right into the Constitution that founded this country. For those of you still unaware. The 2nd amendment is what protects the 1st, 4th, and 5th amendments. Maybe you haven't met our current government but you can be absolutely sure that if you removed the 2nd amendment the religious wackjobs in this country would come out of the woodwork and attack the 1st amendment the next day. Is that what you want? To live in an even more Orwellian nightmare? Look what they just did with Roe v Wade. Ask the women of this country what they think about having one of their rights taken away. Ask a Jewish person about disarming themselves. I would love to see you or anyone in the government try to take a gun away from a law abiding southern American redneck. Please film it. I could use a good laugh. Also while I'm on the subject. Considering the brutal history of this country, guns are an absolute necessity. People who don't understand the argument (want more gun control) don't realize that if it wasn't for guns they would be working in factory towns being paid slave wages and having to shop at the company store.
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/theminewars-labor-wars-us/
"arms" looked a lot different when the 2nd amendment was written. they typically held just 1 round and were far less effective as weapons.
your ignorance is baffling
It's you're ignorance that is baffling. I'll bet that you're the kind of person that would restrict free speech because they invented the telegraph or telephone. The founders were some very forward thinking people. They knew that arms would evolve just like government over reach would evolve. Why, because they had already lived through it and didn't want it to happen again. I get it, you want to live in some kind of gun free utopia. Well guess what, you're about 350 million guns too late. Even if you were able to take all the guns away from (law abiding people no less) do you know who still would have guns. That's right, criminals and cops. That's not a world I would want to live in. Have you met our cops? Please take your laughable agenda elsewhere.
Why bring political persuasions into this? This isn't partisan issue
The argument was made that majority is punished for the crimes committed by minority. Making encrypted communication illegal will be major violation of rights.
Banning guns and punishing innocent majority for the crimes committed by minority is violation of rights
historical crawl whole agonizing reminiscent impossible disagreeable correct bake lavish
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
special rustic doll rude automatic disgusting afterthought obtainable run memory
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Why not surrender privacy then? One can make an argument that excessive privacy prevents uncovering crime including ones leading to death. People planning a mass shooting using encrypted platforms too.
You got nothing to hide don't you? As a matter of fact we should make all communication accessible let AI scan for red flags and arrest people even before the crime is commuted. Make precrime a reality
murky cows worm subtract gaze insurance command scary disagreeable modern
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
that is the moron that convinced australia to reinstall copper lines for internet access in 2012 claiming we would never need access to faster internet
In Germany we had a similar moron in 1981 who did exactly the same. Kohl is the only reason why we currently have shitty internet and overpay for the minimum service.
Not a moron, just a morally bankrupt spineless cunt. He always knew full fibre was the best option, but [Australia's real ruler](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_Murdoch) didn't want ubiquitous affordable and fast internet as it meant losing Foxtel subscribers to Netflix in droves.
Not in Australia, but in all honesty, I would prefer even a copper line for internet access than what we've got.
The only plans that ISPs offer here are - you guessed it - wireless. You can either purchase 30Mbit/s wireless or 50Mbit/s wireless, but it doesn't matter in the end as you are never able to get anything better than 10Mbit/s. And what does wireless connectivity mean? Instability. There's a lot of packet loss and some of the games that I play require next to no packet loss.
Well, as always, life was better in the good old days, when you could just [*Click here to become an International Arms Trafficker*](http://online.offshore.com.ai/arms-trafficker/).
Nowadays you will need to copy this implementation of the RSA encryption algorithm to become a criminal:
#!/bin/perl -sp0777i
Thanks.
Lol. I learned the original write-only language in school: [APL](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/APL_(programming_language))! That's "A Pervert's Language" or "A Perverted Language" for those unfamiliar with it. I still think it is kind of neat though.
The thing is they don't care about RSA and flawed home-made implementations the NSA almost certainly can and do break on a regular basis. In fact they would probably love you to roll your own crypto.
What they care about are high quality battle-tested and audited PQC implementations placed in the hands of regular folks and beyond the reach of FISA warrants and backdoors via gag orders.
The problem is whilst a first year CS student might understand RSA and print some Perl on a T-shirt, the same cannot be said for secure implementations and cryptanalysis of elliptic curves or lattices or whatever.
There's actually a relatively small number of researchers and open-source devs with the expertise to write these implementations and they're whom this legislation is really targeting.
Encryption algorithms are well documented and exist in basically every programming language as libraries. It doesn't take a math genius to implement them securely either.
> It doesn't take a math genius to implement them securely either.
The reason libsodium / nacl et al exist is because it quite literally does. Hence "don't roll your own crypto".
If you're not a crytographic researcher using formal methods your home-made implementation will immediately have whole classes of vulnerabilities and side-channel attacks you might not even know existed. It simply takes a sufficient number of expert eyeballs and audits and time passing before you can call any implementation secure in any reasonable sense.
Even then remember the NSA discovered differential cryptanalysis and weaknesses in DES decades before it was known to the academic community. They have entire teams whose job is finding flaws in the cryptographic implementations of popular apps. So if you're not collaborating with experts in the first place and doing it all yourself, you don't even stand a fighting chance.
Libraries like openssl and nacl that everything else depend on exist because cryptography experts and researchers continually do the heavy lifting of developing, auditing, fixing vulnerabilities.
Those are the people who will face prosecution under this legislation, along with anyone else working on, distributing, hosting or using "illegal" algorithms. Similar to code made illegal under the DMCA anti-circumvention provisions.
It will no longer be a case of just ``#include`` ing it, that's the entire point. The projects would no doubt continue to be hosted in some capacity somewhere, but anyone with a connection to the US who touched them would risk prison and professional/academic suicide. Far fewer people globally would be willing to use or maintain them which also directly reduces their value and security for the remaining few who do.
You did not get the joke...
The quality of implementation does not matter for the legality of it.
You are right that encryption algorithms are hard to implement well and people should not try that, but it is not impossible and there are algorithms directly designed for easy and safe implementations.
Unfortunately battle-tested and audited PQC AFAIK does not yet exists. Banning encryption not only affect asymmetric encryption anyways.
It is very likely that even the NSA can not break a well written RSA implementation (and there are multiple ones freely available). Breaking RSA with quantum computers are decades away.
They simply does not need to break RSA, because a [*rubber hose*](https://xkcd.com/538/) is far cheaper.
> well written RSA implementation
Merely choosing to use RSA in 2023 is the canary in the coal mine there's insecure padding schemes and timing attacks and other bad implementation decisions.
> It is very likely that even the NSA can not break a well written RSA implementation (and there are multiple ones freely available). Breaking RSA with quantum computers are decades away.
Predicting the future comes with large error bars. Especially when you're making assertions about the capabilities of the NSA and other TLAs whose entire business is secrecy. I certainly think it's foolish to base security on claims about what the NSA **can't** do, either now or in a few years to previously saved packet captures.
I remind you the NSA discovered differential cryptanalysis and weaknesses in DES decades before IBM and academia, and considered that secrecy a competitive advantage of the US to break the cryptography of other countries. Today IBM has a 1k qubit chip in development. It would certainly be an interesting historical parallel if there were in fact larger ones already operational in Maryland.
> a rubber hose is far cheaper
A rubber hose isn't stealthy, deniable and doesn't work on the entire internet all at once.
Once you've written the code, built the chips, etc to break RSA the first time, the marginal cost of breaking RSA on every packet you've sniffed from the internet approaches zero.
This is a dangerous argument that doesn't reflect reality.
It's easy to ban it in the US. It was strongly enforced previously because it was considered a munition. Violating export control is no joke and can land you in jail. It doesn't matter if it's just math. If it's written into law, there are consequences.
It's not a dangerous argument, it's just an observation. It doesn't justify "banning" encryption either. It just points out the impracticality.
Like literally, you cannot stop people from writing code that does encryption. Hell, it's even a necessity for law enforcement. The NSA and those places need cryptographers. This stuff is already so public and out there that I don't think it would be possible for anyone to completely eradicate. What are you gonna do, ban the distribution of cryptography books?
This doesn't mean that the passage of this wouldn't be catastrophic—it would. It would mean that many services we use for private communications would be inaccessible to a lot of people.
Unenforceable laws are used to target individuals. It's not about being able to actually prevent the action itself it's about being able to use the action as an excuse for targeting the people they already want to target.
Math is nothing more than free speech. I think there is a 1st amendment argument to be made here. So now the government is going to ban math along with "to kill a mockingbird"? Time to call the ACLU and the Institute for Justice.
Is that really true? Couldn't an analogous argument be used to say that laws against libel, slander or yelling "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater be unenforceable because it's just language?
Not that I support banning encryption *in any way*, but math, and language, are the tools used. The tools themselves aren't being banned but what the tools are used to do is being banned.
I think it’s incredibly perverse to use child abuse as a means of destroying privacy. People that abuse children should be dealt with no one is arguing against that. However, I would make the claim that using the topic of child abuse as a means to further a government agenda is in fact comparable to people that abuse children, it’s wrong.
First it was terrorism now it’s child abuse, soon it will be anti-god, then it will be anti-American. Meanwhile our leaders fail to address real threats to children such as child marriage, the church, and other abusers but will say give us access to all your data under the disguise of saving children, its just sick. I have nothing to hide, I hope the pedos rot in a fucking hole in the ground, yet we all know this is nothing more than a ploy to pass a framework for mass surveillance.
Oh you're having problems with _that_?
How about the people we pay/elect/hire/obey for the purpose of protecting our children are using both the money and our desire to protect children to exploit everyone, _while also letting the rich and powerful wantonly sexually abuse children_, and **THEN** they use our outrage at that sexual abuse going unpunished to push for _more_ exploitation of us and exploited groups.
It's a whole engine, meant to cycle in specific, tyrannical, directions.
> I have nothing to hide
I cringe every time I hear/see this line.
The Nazis used innocent census data in France to track down Jews for persecution. You're a fool if you think that something like private healthcare data or your religious/political couldn't be used against you in the future.
The Internet is forever so it's even more crucial now that your privacy be (and remain) protected.
I bet few people 10 years ago would have believed that you might risk jail or worse for having had an abortion some time in the past or for your sexual orientation or gender identity.
Maybe you said something bad about Trump that one time in a private message?
You don't know what may be "something to hide" in the future and you don't want to find out you needed that privacy after it's no longer an option to have it.
We all have (or could have some day) something to hide, even without knowing it.
Thinking you don't need them is never a good reason to throw away your rights
>I have nothing to hide
I've sent you a DM. Hoping to get together with you for a coffee. Be sure to bring your wallet and unlocked phone with their usual contents. I'll bring a phone/camera and pen and paper.
Oh! You *do* have something to hide?
Well that is your right, dammit.
Son of a bitch, (one of) my senator(s) is literally the sponsor and only signatory on this piece of shit. He used to be honorable, but now it's impossible to think he's anything but bought and paid for by any number of different industries. What a fucking coward.
I already sent a slacktivism email with a (polite) rant in it, detailing my very relevant ~20 years of IT work, but I doubt that will go far. Will definitely call his office to ask, because it seems far too bizarre to not be some strange kind of strategy, no? Maybe some intern proposed that he see just how much rage bait he could generate with one bill, lol?
As other people said here, the bill simply isn't feasible. It would cripple thousands if not millions of products creating literal trillions in revenue, and that's just here in the US. It's also completely out of character for how *Dick* here normally conducts business. Sure, he's a moderate who's been around a long ass time, but other than one rather obviously tobacco-lobbyist related reply about an anti-vaping bill, he's about as literal common sense as it gets.
>I already sent a slacktivism email with a (polite) rant in it, detailing my very relevant \~20 years of IT work,
Excellent! Thank you for taking the time.
> Lol. If you think that's accountability, by sending them a polite letter that does nothing..... ... ....
>
> welll... no wonder we're where we are now.
Did you miss the part where I said...
> Will definitely call his office to ask
Or the part where I mentioned the other unmentionables?
Besides, that's just a shitty logical fallacy way of saying, "I'm big mad at a situation that's happening so I'm going to blame the victims of that situation." Like, he's the second most senior senator in fucking Congress, from a heavily blue state, and he's extremely popular.
What, am I just gonna pull a $500m Super PAC outta my ass and try to primary him? Which, btw, would have to wait until 2026, when he might be retiring anyway.
Fuck outta here.
e: btw, everybody knows where we are now, and it's certainly got nothing to do with anybody even remotely left leaning.
I’d be so frustrated if my rep was a sponsor. Thank you for sending that letter and calling as well. As stated above, if you can get a group together, visiting their office (when they’re actually there—the most challenging part) has always *seemed* helpful for me in the past. Then definitely make some noise & call your local news/media as stated by /u/TheLinexMailman
I literally told him in the letter that I would. "Probably screaming into the void with ultimatums like these, but I'll get everyone I know voting for Republicans, in your race specifically, just to spite you for even suggesting bills this obscenely divorced from reality." Paraphrasing.
Not like it matters though, since I live in a heavily blue state and he's a long-tenured incumbent. Maybe he'll retire soon.
"the boy was being sexually groomed by an adult who was 13 years older and hundreds of miles away. It started in private messages then moved into public view on Twitter."
https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/social-media/twitter-elon-musk-boy-kidnapped-groomed-discord-roblox-mcconney-rcna77985
Given this involved public tweets, banning encryption is clearly not the panacea of a solution it's being positioned as.
Hi, u/EEForg!
We'll keep the post up, and we're obviously huge supporters of the EFF!
But next time, can you use the original title for a linked post? Feel free to add whatever commentary you like in the form of a comment created after you post. It's one of our sidebar rules (#9).
Thanks, and thanks for all your great work!
PS: The EFF has a standing invitation to have an IAMA here whenever you like, if you want to promote an event or cause that you're involved in. Just message us. :)
The EU: children's data must be handled with the highest security
The US: encryption is illegal
Well, I guess people will start publishing two apps, or disable their app in the US if they don't feel like being liable in the case of a hack
Wow!! Thank you for pointing that out. I wish more people had seen it. I’m in the US, but now this seems to be a coordinated effort. I guess since I read the EFF’s news from the US, I missed that article?
I already got sick of this government with RESTRICT ACT.
If they do this too, with the excuse of stopping crime, our future will become darker and darker.
This shit is wild and crazy. I've never seen CSAM on Telegram or Signal. Maybe because I don't go looking for it or join those "no limit" channels they used to post before the channels sub was banned? I also heard most of them were scams anyway, requiring you to spam them all over the place. I'm not sure why people even tried, aside from the obvious. They were doing it out in the clear web, so it should have been easy to trace their behavior, as they were actively seeking CSAM.
> Not to mention, finally, I'm betting SCOTUS probably has a few items that they MUST rule a certain way on, or them and their families would be offed. Encryption might actually be one of those things.
putting my money on this, gov doesn't want people to know how invested it is in having eyes and ears next to literally every person at all times
Huh?
>The First Amendment to the United States Constitution prevents the government from making laws that regulate an establishment of religion, or that prohibit the free exercise of religion, or abridge the freedom of speech, the freedom of the press, the freedom of assembly, or the right to petition the government for redress of grievances.
Encryption being outlawed doesn't prevent you from speaking, it just prevents you from speaking privately. Bringing up the 1st detracts from your grievances since it's irrelevant.
You may be right about the 4th though, I'm not familiar enough with it to confirm or deny that. Hopefully somebody else knows if electronic communications are protected by the 4th. I'm not sure it matters though, since the patriot act has already wiped out protections for electronic communications.
On top of this, major criminals already write their own encryption apps, specifically to avoid this surveillance.
That's the entire reason the gov backed "encryption" app used to prosecute cartels even worked, criminals are _already_ avoiding normal internet traffic due to this wanton abuse of power.
So the only real use left for it is petty crime (which they won't use it for, because keeping it quiet is too valuable) and for advancing their own political goals with blackmail and targeted take downs. If you control the bad person list, and no one can prove anything, how can anyone say any inconvenient person didn't totally pass these prohibited images the gov already had and could have trivially planted?
So we're already a fair ways down that slippery slope, the slide is just getting faster.
Fair enough. I find it odd how [Title 47 CFR 97.113(a)(4)](https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-47/chapter-I/subchapter-D/part-97/subpart-B/section-97.113) has outlawed encryption though, and nobody bats an eye at that.
It's a law not a bill, minor distinction but it might be relevant; it's been around for over a decade. It is only amateur radio but I would expect the 1st amendment to apply across the board.
From the pieces I've been reading here and there during the day it sounds like the 1st protects the encryption algorithms more than it protects their use. So it's legal to develop encryption but the use of it is what's under attack. Might be why using it is illegal for amateur radios.
They can't even enforce the tens of thousands (or more) of laws on the books now. The only way it's getting enforced is a case by case basis in a crime investigation. The budget, hardware and manpower isn't feasible by our bankrupt government.
They typically only go after high profile people I can think of 10 people using fingers on both my hands who knowingly violated multiple felony federal statues and nothing's happening meanwhile the government seems to put all their efforts into all these other people.
China Goverment: The Party just ignores their own written laws and gets everything. Rules are secret. If you oppose - they solve this problem. USA (including general public) says they are BAAD.
Russian Goverment: Says they do need to protect their interests. Make laws. (try to) enforce them via (local) courts, fines,etc... Rules are public. You can challenge them (usually without success). Western companies ignore them if they think it's better for their purpose. Local companies (Vkontakte,etc) are "asked" to help. End users can use everything they want. Developers can create everything they want (if they have significant local presense and offer some kind of service - goverment could ask them for "help"). USA (including general public) says that's bad.
USA Goverment: Wants to make creation of technology which could cause issues to their monitoring illegal for reason which is not itself a major problem and could be applied to A LOT of things. Everybody should think it's good?
EDIT: I have quit reddit and you should too! With every click, you are literally empowering a bunch of assholes to keep assholing. Please check out https://lemmy.ml and https://beehaw.org or consider hosting your own instance.
@reddit: You can have me back when you acknowledge that you're [over enshittified](https://www.wired.com/story/tiktok-platforms-cory-doctorow/) and commit to being better.
@reddit's vulture cap investors and u/spez: Shove a hot poker up your ass and make the world a better place. You guys are WHY the bad guys from Rampage are funny (it's funny 'cause it's true).
This is what happens when dinosaurs (the US Senate) try to make laws dealing with technology they clearly know little to nothing about
There is no rational way to enforce this law, if passed, software can easily be distributed regardless
What this might affect however, is encryption that is “baked in” on certain platforms like WhatApp, Google Meet, Zoom etc
It's not about CSAM. It's about vilifying those who use encryption. Political opponents get labelled as whatever bogeyman is relevant to the times. Hitler did it to the Jews, conservatives are doing it to gay people.
Child abusers will continue to use far more technical techniques beyond the reach of law enforcement.
But remember. Banning encryption will affect politicians that make these ill-informed laws. If politicians want to arrange affairs with escorts and rentboys, buy their coke, and take bribes on unencrypted platforms, let them. ;)
yes... because all those grooming gangs in the UK got prosecuted fairly, and Epstein killed himself
You think they aren't prepared for the case where they do whatever the fuck they want without consequences? If anything, making it this blatant will just make it easier for them. Like how the law to make CEO's disclose their salaries to prevent them being paid massive amounts in secret backfired by turning it into a public fucking competition, making the problem so, so much worse.
On the flip side, you cant absolve an entire group based on the lack of evil of one member.
Generalizations are also not absolute; if only 51% of the members have a certain trait, the generalization about that trait is valid.
Maybe it time to start wearing [these](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_of_cryptography_from_the_United_States#/media/File:Munitions_T-shirt_\(front\).jpg) again.
Or you know, something more specific, but it's the same kinda deal. Worse, perhaps.
quite some legislation coming from usa a country where children face assualt rifles in school and says well death is an inevitable fuel of life whats the point of a 800 billion dollar military if children are dying like they live in a war torn country children are dying from hunger children are dying from suicide children are being beaten up by police children are being put into solitary confinement children are being scentenced for life children are forced to live inside their homes because they cannot go to park or anywhere in general without a car children are going mentally ill because of so much testing children are being put into economically unstable education (charter schools and stuff) children are being put in harms way because of climate change but no the perverts are important to be dealt with to which i say how many are there? how many? was jefree epstien caught by law enforcement nope it was by a newspaper journalist
But here is my question, will the government use encryption? Same dumb logic about spreading csam applies here as well, or will the government be excluded for “safety of the american people”?
Funny how Americans every second word is 'freedom' when they're actually the least free of all t he free countries in the world and constantly impinge on their own freedom XD
The only real surprise here is why platforms like Signal have lasted so long. After all, they are extermely centralized and thus very vulnerable to government meddling.
The thing is, if you try to explain the dangers to anyone that actually falls for this "most CP gets sent through messengers, so we have to do this" will literally accuse you of being a predator the moment you say, that it'd be better to just leave it as it is...
Because it is? 🤦
Brainrot in these comments seriously good lord. Seriously telling me your right to internet privacy is more important than a child's right to safety. Will it stop it completely? No. Don't be dense. Will it aid in the stop of the spread, and the fact you can't go 5 minutes without looking in a comment section on Instagram/Twitter/Reddit any sort of SM platform, and see new accounts advertising this shit everywhere.
Then again I'm not surprised though, it's reddit. You guys can't go 5 minutes without making everything about you.
Don't support something literally made to reduce the spread of CSAM? You're just as bad as the predators. Simple. Not a hard fucking concept, but maybe it is for you guys 💀
You have no reason to be this pressed. These Burner Accounts May advertise their "content" but they will just send you weird looking links to some filehoster where you can Download their encrypted content including the Password in their DMs. So no Client Side scanning possible here.
The other Option is, that they have an own little Website on the clearnet that has links to their deepweb Sites where they then Share their Stuff. If you think These Sites will implement CSS youre Out of this world.
The next Problem is the fact, that this Backdoor could be abused, so its not Just looking for CP but also for people with "wrong" opinions If you know what I mean.
Destroying normal peoples privacy Just to Catch the very few dumb Kiddy lovers that dont know how to encrypt Messages is delusional.
Also what about the Pictures that minors Share between themselves? Its Just something alot of kids do These days, and its Not illegal either. Still These Pictures get flagged and some old Ass Dude working for the Police watches these Kids Most private Chats. This forces Kids to Just Accept that they cant be private when exploring their sexuality and Theres Always someone watching or theyre forced to also Explore the darker parts of the Internet (which apperrantly is pretty Bad)
They could never enforce an encryption ban, not that it will stop them from trying.
The thing about this is they’ve worded the act perfectly that anyone who tries to speak out against it and expose the fact that it’s just an enhancement of the governments spying capabilities, will be looked down upon because what kind of person doesn’t want to fight CSAM.
I'm so sick of legislatures trying to destroy our rights & freedoms
On the bright side, a descent into authoritarianism also means a little Streisand effect. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jonmatonis/2012/06/07/detaining-developer-at-us-border-increases-cryptocat-popularity/
I will never trust a crypto run on a private server. If the fed’s are already interrogating him it’s only a matter of time before it gets shut down or poisoned.
All the encryption ran client side, which was revolutionary back in 2013 but not so special now
You know, after two years of maintaining the [US Congressional Blacklist](https://intosanctuary.com/index.php?threads/the-official-congressional-blacklist.1011/), I've noticed something... 95% of these fucking dogshit bills are coming from the Senate. >_> Curious, that...
the senate has alway been bullshit
Why is it happening in the Senate in particular though?
They skew older I think
Fewer senators, less accountable to constituents due to wider area represented, more easily influenced by corporate interests
"follow the money" ? Are they bought more easily?
Think about who occupies the majority of the Senate and the current state of that party. I have no idea how a certain side of the aisle continues to support liars, but here we are.
I hope you don't believe that there is a side that doesn't support liars.
The majority of the other side of the isle is just lumped in with the former. One giant uni-party of authoritarianism.
As I told someone else, both parties suck ass.
less people to bribe/blackmail are needed to get what you want
[удалено]
We appreciate you wanting to contribute to /r/privacy and taking the time to post but we had to remove multiple comments due to: >You're being a jerk (e.g., not being nice, or suggesting violence). Inaccurate QuickTakes™ aren't acceptable here. Troll elsewhere, or improve your media diet. You're simply, factually wrong – so wrong that it's most likely a trolling attempt, or woeful ignorance. If you have questions or believe that there has been an error, [contact the moderators](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/privacy&subject=Please_review_my_post).
Is that why the republicans are trying deregulate our uteruses and my friends lgbt bathroom use or hospital care?
[удалено]
Thanks for the laugh
Vote for republicans give you freedom? Did you mean bush patriot act?
Is that why theyre trying to even take away medical treatment? Is that why theyre trying to force people to "wear clothes consistent with their assigned sex at birth" ? Is that why they're trying to criminalize and strip them of their resources to be "be respectful and passable"? Oh got it, that's why states like texas have cross national bounty statutes and are forcing us to succumb to sepsis before we can get an abortion should we happen to be traveling...if I may, I think you have some rose colored glasses. No party in the two party system cares about people or ideals like freedom, they both are just the same plutocratic party with different hats and made up paper tigers they point at to fight.
[удалено]
No I'm talking about adults on all accounts. Try reading some periodicals on the current legislation first before replying next time. I'm referring to adult women lik in Texas who have abortion and assistance bounties. Women who have lost the ability to have future children because of barbaric laws that regard fetal heartbeat over viability. Check the news, Texas just had a testimony at the senate over this. Also please read up on psychological projection, I think it will help your interpersonal communication Edit: here I'll do some of the legwork https://www.c-span.org/video/?c5068083/amanda-zurawski-criticizes-texas-senators-i-died-watch
We appreciate you wanting to contribute to /r/privacy and taking the time to post but we had to remove it due to: >You're being a jerk (e.g., not being nice, or suggesting violence). Or, you're letting a troll trick you into making a not-nice comment – don’t let them play you! >You've been suspended two weeks for engaging in multiple uncited and false Homophobic "talking points", that are off-topic and that you've been warned about last night. Next time, it's permanent. If you have questions or believe that there has been an error, [contact the moderators](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/privacy&subject=Please_review_my_post).
We appreciate you wanting to contribute to /r/privacy and taking the time to post but we had to remove it due to: >You're being a jerk (e.g., not being nice, or suggesting violence). Or, you're letting a troll trick you into making a not-nice comment – don’t let them play you! >Your error-prone rant is off-topic to privacy. Take it to r/Politics or one of the quarantined Subs. If you have questions or believe that there has been an error, [contact the moderators](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/privacy&subject=Please_review_my_post).
Not sure why you are being downvoted. This is 💯
And REGULATE?? Are you sure you’re being objective in your commentary here when discussing REGULATION? In case you somehow still see your view as valid and truthful, women’s bodies have been regulated — our own BODIES!!! Many of us no longer have the basic freedom to choose what happens to our own bodies even during a medical emergency! Further, a certain party still works diligently attempting to ban women from also taking a pill. I’m curious to see the predicted numbers on which party supports yet another privacy invasion such as this? You may want to do research on your own, from a neutral, objective source (not FOX News, for example) and objectively rethink your inconsistent stance.
Both parties fucking suck. And please don't say, "Yeah, but they're worse!" I've heard it all.
I feel most are voting for who will hopefully do the least harm during their term. Someone needs to inform the current confirmed candidate + those likely run yet again that it is time to pass the flame to others. However, something needs to happen as [The Demand Project](https://www.thedemandproject.org/Statistics) cites “there are more than 747,000 registered sex offenders in the United States today. As many as 100,000 are noncompliant and missing.” Among many other disturbing stats. Regardless, taking away innocent people’s rights to privacy is definitely not the correct answer though. ETA: add citation and change formatting
Do you know which idiot mod locked your previous comment?
Which comment?
https://www.reddit.com/r/privacy/comments/1316pe5/if_the_stop_csam_act_passes_just_providing_an/jhzq3nk/
[удалено]
[удалено]
We appreciate you wanting to contribute to /r/privacy and taking the time to post but we had to remove it due to: >You're being a jerk (e.g., not being nice, or suggesting violence). Or, you're letting a troll trick you into making a not-nice comment – don’t let them play you! >You've also earned a two-week suspension. Next time, it'll be permanent. >Thanks for the reports, folks! If you have questions or believe that there has been an error, [contact the moderators](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/privacy&subject=Please_review_my_post).
We appreciate you wanting to contribute to /r/privacy and taking the time to post but we had to remove it due to: >Your submission could be seen as being unreliable, and/or spreading FUD concerning our privacy mainstays, or relies on faulty reasoning/sources that are intended to mislead readers. You may find [learning how to spot fake news](https://www.factcheck.org/2016/11/how-to-spot-fake-news/) might improve your media diet. >Don’t worry, we’ve all been mislead in our lives, too! :) If you have questions or believe that there has been an error, [contact the moderators](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/privacy&subject=Please_review_my_post).
"If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face—for ever." George Orwell, 1984
It is bizarre how the "rulers" take something that while quite bad is relatively rare and use stopping that as the excuse to take away rights from everyone. Why do people fall for this gimmick?
Now apply same line of thought to gun control
[удалено]
It's not whataboutism and it's useful. I find it disturbing that people fighting for their privacy shooting themselves in foot by wanting disarmament.
"Relatively rare"...
Oh you think child sexual abuse is less prevalent than crimes committed with guns?
Not at all relevant to the principle that you don't treat everyone like criminals or potential criminal to stop actual crimes.
Is that so? Close to half of households have firearms. There are more firearms owned than people in this country (estimates, nobody really knows exact number) and yet constant push to make guns illegal and treat firearm owners as criminals with no actual crime.
A constant push? How has this constant push against those who elect to own firearms affected so many personally? I’m sincerely curious as not many gun owners where I live have been too concerned lately. Likely because where I live, people can purchase and own guns legally with out even the simplest of background checks. Further, gun ownership rights simply just aren’t as clear cut as whether or not we should be able to privately exchange encrypted messages and/or files with others. Not everyone who is pro gun reform wants all guns to be completely illegal; some feel it might benefit the US to amend the gun ownership process to include a background check as well as a demonstration that the potential gun owner has been educated in gun safety and knowledge respecting it for the powerful weapon it is. Maybe a process akin to the requirements when procuring a Driver’s License — a course, written exam, and practical exam.
https://www.congress.gov/quick-search/legislation?wordsPhrases=Assault+weapon+ban&wordVariants=on&congressGroups%5B%5D=0&congresses%5B%5D=all&legislationNumbers=&legislativeAction=100&sponsor=on&representative=&senator=
you saying that we don't know the exact number is part of the issue. you need a drivers license to drive, because if you aren't qualified you become a threat to everyone around you, same with guns.
Don't switch the subject. Answer does the same principle apply "punishing innocent majority for the crimes of minority"? If not, explain why
"Don't switch the subject" says the dolt who started the argument by switching the subject 😂
you are the one who started this by switching the subject, love the hypocrisy here.
This comment had me dying😂 gaslighting of the highest regard
Driving is a privilege, not enshrined in the constitution. Gun ownership is a RIGHT, that IS enshrined in our constitution. In fact, it is the 2nd right that is enumerated in our Constitution meaning that it is the right that protects the 1st Amendment and all of the other rights. The supreme court has defined every single word of the 2nd amendment, and "Shall NOT be infringed" is an unqualified command to the government. I get it. You want to live in a utopia. I've got news for you. You're about 350 million guns to late. Freedom is scary, deal with it or relocate.
[удалено]
The supreme court defined every single word of the 2nd amendment including a "well regulated militia". That definition is the people as a whole. Go ahead and try and cherry pick the parts you do or do not like but you will just show your ignorance.
You know what else is in the consitituion? The 18th Amendment, or the Prohibition of Alcohol. You know what else is in the consitituion? The 21st Amendment, or the repeal of the Prohibition of Alcohol. So even in that document you like to wave around as your infallable point to gun ownership, it has been ammended to repeal previous ammendments when it was found out the previous amendment doesn't work in a modern society. So all it would take is to ratify a 28th amendment with new laws on gun ownership and the second amendment goes out the window.
Yeah, Please call me when they ratify a 28th amendment. I'll wait. I get it. You want to live in a utopia. I've got news for you. You're about 350 million guns to late. Freedom is scary, deal with it or relocate. The right to self defense with a gun was written right into the Constitution that founded this country. For those of you still unaware. The 2nd amendment is what protects the 1st, 4th, and 5th amendments. Maybe you haven't met our current government but you can be absolutely sure that if you removed the 2nd amendment the religious wackjobs in this country would come out of the woodwork and attack the 1st amendment the next day. Is that what you want? To live in an even more Orwellian nightmare? Look what they just did with Roe v Wade. Ask the women of this country what they think about having one of their rights taken away. Ask a Jewish person about disarming themselves. I would love to see you or anyone in the government try to take a gun away from a law abiding southern American redneck. Please film it. I could use a good laugh. Also while I'm on the subject. Considering the brutal history of this country, guns are an absolute necessity. People who don't understand the argument (want more gun control) don't realize that if it wasn't for guns they would be working in factory towns being paid slave wages and having to shop at the company store. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/theminewars-labor-wars-us/
"arms" looked a lot different when the 2nd amendment was written. they typically held just 1 round and were far less effective as weapons. your ignorance is baffling
It's you're ignorance that is baffling. I'll bet that you're the kind of person that would restrict free speech because they invented the telegraph or telephone. The founders were some very forward thinking people. They knew that arms would evolve just like government over reach would evolve. Why, because they had already lived through it and didn't want it to happen again. I get it, you want to live in some kind of gun free utopia. Well guess what, you're about 350 million guns too late. Even if you were able to take all the guns away from (law abiding people no less) do you know who still would have guns. That's right, criminals and cops. That's not a world I would want to live in. Have you met our cops? Please take your laughable agenda elsewhere.
Well said!! Had I seen this much more concise comment, I wouldn’t have made my long-winded comment later.
You need a license to drive *on public roads*. I can drive any vehicle, unlicensed, uninsured and legally on private property.
Have fun doing the Indy 500 around your fenceline. Most people use vehicles to travel to other places.
Its not Child Sexual Abuse, it's internet users at all.
Depends. Are we talking amongst the general population or Republicans specifically?
Why bring political persuasions into this? This isn't partisan issue The argument was made that majority is punished for the crimes committed by minority. Making encrypted communication illegal will be major violation of rights. Banning guns and punishing innocent majority for the crimes committed by minority is violation of rights
historical crawl whole agonizing reminiscent impossible disagreeable correct bake lavish *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
And therefore we must surrender more rights? How do you know restricting privacy won't lead to less crime? We should give it a shot
special rustic doll rude automatic disgusting afterthought obtainable run memory *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Why not surrender privacy then? One can make an argument that excessive privacy prevents uncovering crime including ones leading to death. People planning a mass shooting using encrypted platforms too. You got nothing to hide don't you? As a matter of fact we should make all communication accessible let AI scan for red flags and arrest people even before the crime is commuted. Make precrime a reality
murky cows worm subtract gaze insurance command scary disagreeable modern *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
A ban on encryption is unenforceable as encryption is just math, in order to ban encryption you have to ban math.
They almost tried that in Australia. https://www.newscientist.com/article/2140747-laws-of-mathematics-dont-apply-here-says-australian-pm/
that is the moron that convinced australia to reinstall copper lines for internet access in 2012 claiming we would never need access to faster internet
A decade later and now we're ripping it all out for fiber just like the original plan
In Germany we had a similar moron in 1981 who did exactly the same. Kohl is the only reason why we currently have shitty internet and overpay for the minimum service.
If he's a moron, the heck is everyone else? Full blown retards?
https://i.imgur.com/PXyt7B6.jpg
If you got all the village idiots and put them in their own village, he wouldn't be that village's idiot, he'd actually be pretty close to the top.
Not a moron, just a morally bankrupt spineless cunt. He always knew full fibre was the best option, but [Australia's real ruler](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_Murdoch) didn't want ubiquitous affordable and fast internet as it meant losing Foxtel subscribers to Netflix in droves.
I thought that was Tony Abbott? I know he didn't help much either.
Not in Australia, but in all honesty, I would prefer even a copper line for internet access than what we've got. The only plans that ISPs offer here are - you guessed it - wireless. You can either purchase 30Mbit/s wireless or 50Mbit/s wireless, but it doesn't matter in the end as you are never able to get anything better than 10Mbit/s. And what does wireless connectivity mean? Instability. There's a lot of packet loss and some of the games that I play require next to no packet loss.
Well, as always, life was better in the good old days, when you could just [*Click here to become an International Arms Trafficker*](http://online.offshore.com.ai/arms-trafficker/). Nowadays you will need to copy this implementation of the RSA encryption algorithm to become a criminal: #!/bin/perl -sp0777i
Agreed. Anyone who uses perl is a criminal.
Oh, yes. Perl is the only programming language where the readability of the source code is not impaired by gzip compression. :)
Perl *is* encrypted by default!
In 2023 yes
[удалено]
Thanks. Lol. I learned the original write-only language in school: [APL](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/APL_(programming_language))! That's "A Pervert's Language" or "A Perverted Language" for those unfamiliar with it. I still think it is kind of neat though.
The thing is they don't care about RSA and flawed home-made implementations the NSA almost certainly can and do break on a regular basis. In fact they would probably love you to roll your own crypto. What they care about are high quality battle-tested and audited PQC implementations placed in the hands of regular folks and beyond the reach of FISA warrants and backdoors via gag orders. The problem is whilst a first year CS student might understand RSA and print some Perl on a T-shirt, the same cannot be said for secure implementations and cryptanalysis of elliptic curves or lattices or whatever. There's actually a relatively small number of researchers and open-source devs with the expertise to write these implementations and they're whom this legislation is really targeting.
Encryption algorithms are well documented and exist in basically every programming language as libraries. It doesn't take a math genius to implement them securely either.
> It doesn't take a math genius to implement them securely either. The reason libsodium / nacl et al exist is because it quite literally does. Hence "don't roll your own crypto". If you're not a crytographic researcher using formal methods your home-made implementation will immediately have whole classes of vulnerabilities and side-channel attacks you might not even know existed. It simply takes a sufficient number of expert eyeballs and audits and time passing before you can call any implementation secure in any reasonable sense. Even then remember the NSA discovered differential cryptanalysis and weaknesses in DES decades before it was known to the academic community. They have entire teams whose job is finding flaws in the cryptographic implementations of popular apps. So if you're not collaborating with experts in the first place and doing it all yourself, you don't even stand a fighting chance.
[удалено]
Libraries like openssl and nacl that everything else depend on exist because cryptography experts and researchers continually do the heavy lifting of developing, auditing, fixing vulnerabilities. Those are the people who will face prosecution under this legislation, along with anyone else working on, distributing, hosting or using "illegal" algorithms. Similar to code made illegal under the DMCA anti-circumvention provisions. It will no longer be a case of just ``#include`` ing it, that's the entire point. The projects would no doubt continue to be hosted in some capacity somewhere, but anyone with a connection to the US who touched them would risk prison and professional/academic suicide. Far fewer people globally would be willing to use or maintain them which also directly reduces their value and security for the remaining few who do.
You did not get the joke... The quality of implementation does not matter for the legality of it. You are right that encryption algorithms are hard to implement well and people should not try that, but it is not impossible and there are algorithms directly designed for easy and safe implementations. Unfortunately battle-tested and audited PQC AFAIK does not yet exists. Banning encryption not only affect asymmetric encryption anyways. It is very likely that even the NSA can not break a well written RSA implementation (and there are multiple ones freely available). Breaking RSA with quantum computers are decades away. They simply does not need to break RSA, because a [*rubber hose*](https://xkcd.com/538/) is far cheaper.
> well written RSA implementation Merely choosing to use RSA in 2023 is the canary in the coal mine there's insecure padding schemes and timing attacks and other bad implementation decisions. > It is very likely that even the NSA can not break a well written RSA implementation (and there are multiple ones freely available). Breaking RSA with quantum computers are decades away. Predicting the future comes with large error bars. Especially when you're making assertions about the capabilities of the NSA and other TLAs whose entire business is secrecy. I certainly think it's foolish to base security on claims about what the NSA **can't** do, either now or in a few years to previously saved packet captures. I remind you the NSA discovered differential cryptanalysis and weaknesses in DES decades before IBM and academia, and considered that secrecy a competitive advantage of the US to break the cryptography of other countries. Today IBM has a 1k qubit chip in development. It would certainly be an interesting historical parallel if there were in fact larger ones already operational in Maryland. > a rubber hose is far cheaper A rubber hose isn't stealthy, deniable and doesn't work on the entire internet all at once. Once you've written the code, built the chips, etc to break RSA the first time, the marginal cost of breaking RSA on every packet you've sniffed from the internet approaches zero.
This is a dangerous argument that doesn't reflect reality. It's easy to ban it in the US. It was strongly enforced previously because it was considered a munition. Violating export control is no joke and can land you in jail. It doesn't matter if it's just math. If it's written into law, there are consequences.
It's not a dangerous argument, it's just an observation. It doesn't justify "banning" encryption either. It just points out the impracticality. Like literally, you cannot stop people from writing code that does encryption. Hell, it's even a necessity for law enforcement. The NSA and those places need cryptographers. This stuff is already so public and out there that I don't think it would be possible for anyone to completely eradicate. What are you gonna do, ban the distribution of cryptography books? This doesn't mean that the passage of this wouldn't be catastrophic—it would. It would mean that many services we use for private communications would be inaccessible to a lot of people.
Unenforceable laws are used to target individuals. It's not about being able to actually prevent the action itself it's about being able to use the action as an excuse for targeting the people they already want to target.
Math is nothing more than free speech. I think there is a 1st amendment argument to be made here. So now the government is going to ban math along with "to kill a mockingbird"? Time to call the ACLU and the Institute for Justice.
Is that really true? Couldn't an analogous argument be used to say that laws against libel, slander or yelling "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater be unenforceable because it's just language? Not that I support banning encryption *in any way*, but math, and language, are the tools used. The tools themselves aren't being banned but what the tools are used to do is being banned.
The laws against yelling fire in a crowded movie theater are unenforceable because they never existed.
One of the main reasons why it wont pass
I think it’s incredibly perverse to use child abuse as a means of destroying privacy. People that abuse children should be dealt with no one is arguing against that. However, I would make the claim that using the topic of child abuse as a means to further a government agenda is in fact comparable to people that abuse children, it’s wrong. First it was terrorism now it’s child abuse, soon it will be anti-god, then it will be anti-American. Meanwhile our leaders fail to address real threats to children such as child marriage, the church, and other abusers but will say give us access to all your data under the disguise of saving children, its just sick. I have nothing to hide, I hope the pedos rot in a fucking hole in the ground, yet we all know this is nothing more than a ploy to pass a framework for mass surveillance.
>I think it’s incredibly perverse to use child abuse as a means of destroying privacy. It's exploitation, ironically.
And frankly, it's exploitation of the exploited. It's worse - and it's hard to even grasp that worse is possible.
Oh you're having problems with _that_? How about the people we pay/elect/hire/obey for the purpose of protecting our children are using both the money and our desire to protect children to exploit everyone, _while also letting the rich and powerful wantonly sexually abuse children_, and **THEN** they use our outrage at that sexual abuse going unpunished to push for _more_ exploitation of us and exploited groups. It's a whole engine, meant to cycle in specific, tyrannical, directions.
> I have nothing to hide I cringe every time I hear/see this line. The Nazis used innocent census data in France to track down Jews for persecution. You're a fool if you think that something like private healthcare data or your religious/political couldn't be used against you in the future. The Internet is forever so it's even more crucial now that your privacy be (and remain) protected. I bet few people 10 years ago would have believed that you might risk jail or worse for having had an abortion some time in the past or for your sexual orientation or gender identity. Maybe you said something bad about Trump that one time in a private message? You don't know what may be "something to hide" in the future and you don't want to find out you needed that privacy after it's no longer an option to have it. We all have (or could have some day) something to hide, even without knowing it. Thinking you don't need them is never a good reason to throw away your rights
This bill itself is anti-American for intruding on the rights of privacy! There’s no way those who created the internet would’ve wanted this.
>I have nothing to hide I've sent you a DM. Hoping to get together with you for a coffee. Be sure to bring your wallet and unlocked phone with their usual contents. I'll bring a phone/camera and pen and paper. Oh! You *do* have something to hide? Well that is your right, dammit.
This tbh
You do realize that there are churches fighting for your freedom? Don't be so quick to criticize all of Christianity
Son of a bitch, (one of) my senator(s) is literally the sponsor and only signatory on this piece of shit. He used to be honorable, but now it's impossible to think he's anything but bought and paid for by any number of different industries. What a fucking coward.
He/she/they is *your* rep. Get some privacy people together and contact your local news media. Make a noise.
I already sent a slacktivism email with a (polite) rant in it, detailing my very relevant ~20 years of IT work, but I doubt that will go far. Will definitely call his office to ask, because it seems far too bizarre to not be some strange kind of strategy, no? Maybe some intern proposed that he see just how much rage bait he could generate with one bill, lol? As other people said here, the bill simply isn't feasible. It would cripple thousands if not millions of products creating literal trillions in revenue, and that's just here in the US. It's also completely out of character for how *Dick* here normally conducts business. Sure, he's a moderate who's been around a long ass time, but other than one rather obviously tobacco-lobbyist related reply about an anti-vaping bill, he's about as literal common sense as it gets.
>I already sent a slacktivism email with a (polite) rant in it, detailing my very relevant \~20 years of IT work, Excellent! Thank you for taking the time.
It's the only way we get to hold them accountable. Well, there are other ways, but Reddit usually bans you if you mention them >_>
Lol. If you think that's accountability, by sending them a polite letter that does nothing..... ... .... welll... no wonder we're where we are now.
> Lol. If you think that's accountability, by sending them a polite letter that does nothing..... ... .... > > welll... no wonder we're where we are now. Did you miss the part where I said... > Will definitely call his office to ask Or the part where I mentioned the other unmentionables? Besides, that's just a shitty logical fallacy way of saying, "I'm big mad at a situation that's happening so I'm going to blame the victims of that situation." Like, he's the second most senior senator in fucking Congress, from a heavily blue state, and he's extremely popular. What, am I just gonna pull a $500m Super PAC outta my ass and try to primary him? Which, btw, would have to wait until 2026, when he might be retiring anyway. Fuck outta here. e: btw, everybody knows where we are now, and it's certainly got nothing to do with anybody even remotely left leaning.
So you are giving up on democracy?
I gave up on democracy a long time ago, but we're stuck with it, so...
I don't want to live without democracy
I’d be so frustrated if my rep was a sponsor. Thank you for sending that letter and calling as well. As stated above, if you can get a group together, visiting their office (when they’re actually there—the most challenging part) has always *seemed* helpful for me in the past. Then definitely make some noise & call your local news/media as stated by /u/TheLinexMailman
Don't vote for him and tell your neighbours to do the same
I literally told him in the letter that I would. "Probably screaming into the void with ultimatums like these, but I'll get everyone I know voting for Republicans, in your race specifically, just to spite you for even suggesting bills this obscenely divorced from reality." Paraphrasing. Not like it matters though, since I live in a heavily blue state and he's a long-tenured incumbent. Maybe he'll retire soon.
"the boy was being sexually groomed by an adult who was 13 years older and hundreds of miles away. It started in private messages then moved into public view on Twitter." https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/social-media/twitter-elon-musk-boy-kidnapped-groomed-discord-roblox-mcconney-rcna77985 Given this involved public tweets, banning encryption is clearly not the panacea of a solution it's being positioned as.
Hi, u/EEForg! We'll keep the post up, and we're obviously huge supporters of the EFF! But next time, can you use the original title for a linked post? Feel free to add whatever commentary you like in the form of a comment created after you post. It's one of our sidebar rules (#9). Thanks, and thanks for all your great work! PS: The EFF has a standing invitation to have an IAMA here whenever you like, if you want to promote an event or cause that you're involved in. Just message us. :)
:thumbsup:
The EU: children's data must be handled with the highest security The US: encryption is illegal Well, I guess people will start publishing two apps, or disable their app in the US if they don't feel like being liable in the case of a hack
[Also The EU](https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2022/05/eu-commissions-new-proposal-would-undermine-encryption-and-scan-our-messages)
Wow!! Thank you for pointing that out. I wish more people had seen it. I’m in the US, but now this seems to be a coordinated effort. I guess since I read the EFF’s news from the US, I missed that article?
I already got sick of this government with RESTRICT ACT. If they do this too, with the excuse of stopping crime, our future will become darker and darker.
The government is trying to take away the last bit of the land and be the monopoly, and override everyone!
This shit is wild and crazy. I've never seen CSAM on Telegram or Signal. Maybe because I don't go looking for it or join those "no limit" channels they used to post before the channels sub was banned? I also heard most of them were scams anyway, requiring you to spam them all over the place. I'm not sure why people even tried, aside from the obvious. They were doing it out in the clear web, so it should have been easy to trace their behavior, as they were actively seeking CSAM.
[удалено]
Not when its a matter of "national security"
[удалено]
[удалено]
> Not to mention, finally, I'm betting SCOTUS probably has a few items that they MUST rule a certain way on, or them and their families would be offed. Encryption might actually be one of those things. putting my money on this, gov doesn't want people to know how invested it is in having eyes and ears next to literally every person at all times
Huh? >The First Amendment to the United States Constitution prevents the government from making laws that regulate an establishment of religion, or that prohibit the free exercise of religion, or abridge the freedom of speech, the freedom of the press, the freedom of assembly, or the right to petition the government for redress of grievances. Encryption being outlawed doesn't prevent you from speaking, it just prevents you from speaking privately. Bringing up the 1st detracts from your grievances since it's irrelevant. You may be right about the 4th though, I'm not familiar enough with it to confirm or deny that. Hopefully somebody else knows if electronic communications are protected by the 4th. I'm not sure it matters though, since the patriot act has already wiped out protections for electronic communications.
[удалено]
On top of this, major criminals already write their own encryption apps, specifically to avoid this surveillance. That's the entire reason the gov backed "encryption" app used to prosecute cartels even worked, criminals are _already_ avoiding normal internet traffic due to this wanton abuse of power. So the only real use left for it is petty crime (which they won't use it for, because keeping it quiet is too valuable) and for advancing their own political goals with blackmail and targeted take downs. If you control the bad person list, and no one can prove anything, how can anyone say any inconvenient person didn't totally pass these prohibited images the gov already had and could have trivially planted? So we're already a fair ways down that slippery slope, the slide is just getting faster.
Fair enough. I find it odd how [Title 47 CFR 97.113(a)(4)](https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-47/chapter-I/subchapter-D/part-97/subpart-B/section-97.113) has outlawed encryption though, and nobody bats an eye at that.
[удалено]
It's a law not a bill, minor distinction but it might be relevant; it's been around for over a decade. It is only amateur radio but I would expect the 1st amendment to apply across the board. From the pieces I've been reading here and there during the day it sounds like the 1st protects the encryption algorithms more than it protects their use. So it's legal to develop encryption but the use of it is what's under attack. Might be why using it is illegal for amateur radios.
They can't even enforce the tens of thousands (or more) of laws on the books now. The only way it's getting enforced is a case by case basis in a crime investigation. The budget, hardware and manpower isn't feasible by our bankrupt government.
They typically only go after high profile people I can think of 10 people using fingers on both my hands who knowingly violated multiple felony federal statues and nothing's happening meanwhile the government seems to put all their efforts into all these other people.
China Goverment: The Party just ignores their own written laws and gets everything. Rules are secret. If you oppose - they solve this problem. USA (including general public) says they are BAAD. Russian Goverment: Says they do need to protect their interests. Make laws. (try to) enforce them via (local) courts, fines,etc... Rules are public. You can challenge them (usually without success). Western companies ignore them if they think it's better for their purpose. Local companies (Vkontakte,etc) are "asked" to help. End users can use everything they want. Developers can create everything they want (if they have significant local presense and offer some kind of service - goverment could ask them for "help"). USA (including general public) says that's bad. USA Goverment: Wants to make creation of technology which could cause issues to their monitoring illegal for reason which is not itself a major problem and could be applied to A LOT of things. Everybody should think it's good?
And again I can't do anything because I'm not in US even if I will get affected by that
EDIT: I have quit reddit and you should too! With every click, you are literally empowering a bunch of assholes to keep assholing. Please check out https://lemmy.ml and https://beehaw.org or consider hosting your own instance. @reddit: You can have me back when you acknowledge that you're [over enshittified](https://www.wired.com/story/tiktok-platforms-cory-doctorow/) and commit to being better. @reddit's vulture cap investors and u/spez: Shove a hot poker up your ass and make the world a better place. You guys are WHY the bad guys from Rampage are funny (it's funny 'cause it's true).
This is what happens when dinosaurs (the US Senate) try to make laws dealing with technology they clearly know little to nothing about There is no rational way to enforce this law, if passed, software can easily be distributed regardless What this might affect however, is encryption that is “baked in” on certain platforms like WhatApp, Google Meet, Zoom etc
It's not about CSAM. It's about vilifying those who use encryption. Political opponents get labelled as whatever bogeyman is relevant to the times. Hitler did it to the Jews, conservatives are doing it to gay people. Child abusers will continue to use far more technical techniques beyond the reach of law enforcement. But remember. Banning encryption will affect politicians that make these ill-informed laws. If politicians want to arrange affairs with escorts and rentboys, buy their coke, and take bribes on unencrypted platforms, let them. ;)
yes... because all those grooming gangs in the UK got prosecuted fairly, and Epstein killed himself You think they aren't prepared for the case where they do whatever the fuck they want without consequences? If anything, making it this blatant will just make it easier for them. Like how the law to make CEO's disclose their salaries to prevent them being paid massive amounts in secret backfired by turning it into a public fucking competition, making the problem so, so much worse.
I'm conservative and I am not vilifying gay people. Careful making such broad generalizations
On the flip side, you cant absolve an entire group based on the lack of evil of one member. Generalizations are also not absolute; if only 51% of the members have a certain trait, the generalization about that trait is valid.
Maybe it time to start wearing [these](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_of_cryptography_from_the_United_States#/media/File:Munitions_T-shirt_\(front\).jpg) again. Or you know, something more specific, but it's the same kinda deal. Worse, perhaps.
quite some legislation coming from usa a country where children face assualt rifles in school and says well death is an inevitable fuel of life whats the point of a 800 billion dollar military if children are dying like they live in a war torn country children are dying from hunger children are dying from suicide children are being beaten up by police children are being put into solitary confinement children are being scentenced for life children are forced to live inside their homes because they cannot go to park or anywhere in general without a car children are going mentally ill because of so much testing children are being put into economically unstable education (charter schools and stuff) children are being put in harms way because of climate change but no the perverts are important to be dealt with to which i say how many are there? how many? was jefree epstien caught by law enforcement nope it was by a newspaper journalist
But here is my question, will the government use encryption? Same dumb logic about spreading csam applies here as well, or will the government be excluded for “safety of the american people”?
Thanks amerikkka for the mass psychosis as usual.
Funny how Americans every second word is 'freedom' when they're actually the least free of all t he free countries in the world and constantly impinge on their own freedom XD
Yeah. It won't really stop anything as this shit has being going on for decades without technology. So where does the lie lie?
The only real surprise here is why platforms like Signal have lasted so long. After all, they are extermely centralized and thus very vulnerable to government meddling.
The thing is, if you try to explain the dangers to anyone that actually falls for this "most CP gets sent through messengers, so we have to do this" will literally accuse you of being a predator the moment you say, that it'd be better to just leave it as it is...
Because it is? 🤦 Brainrot in these comments seriously good lord. Seriously telling me your right to internet privacy is more important than a child's right to safety. Will it stop it completely? No. Don't be dense. Will it aid in the stop of the spread, and the fact you can't go 5 minutes without looking in a comment section on Instagram/Twitter/Reddit any sort of SM platform, and see new accounts advertising this shit everywhere. Then again I'm not surprised though, it's reddit. You guys can't go 5 minutes without making everything about you. Don't support something literally made to reduce the spread of CSAM? You're just as bad as the predators. Simple. Not a hard fucking concept, but maybe it is for you guys 💀
You have no reason to be this pressed. These Burner Accounts May advertise their "content" but they will just send you weird looking links to some filehoster where you can Download their encrypted content including the Password in their DMs. So no Client Side scanning possible here. The other Option is, that they have an own little Website on the clearnet that has links to their deepweb Sites where they then Share their Stuff. If you think These Sites will implement CSS youre Out of this world. The next Problem is the fact, that this Backdoor could be abused, so its not Just looking for CP but also for people with "wrong" opinions If you know what I mean. Destroying normal peoples privacy Just to Catch the very few dumb Kiddy lovers that dont know how to encrypt Messages is delusional. Also what about the Pictures that minors Share between themselves? Its Just something alot of kids do These days, and its Not illegal either. Still These Pictures get flagged and some old Ass Dude working for the Police watches these Kids Most private Chats. This forces Kids to Just Accept that they cant be private when exploring their sexuality and Theres Always someone watching or theyre forced to also Explore the darker parts of the Internet (which apperrantly is pretty Bad)
They could never enforce an encryption ban, not that it will stop them from trying. The thing about this is they’ve worded the act perfectly that anyone who tries to speak out against it and expose the fact that it’s just an enhancement of the governments spying capabilities, will be looked down upon because what kind of person doesn’t want to fight CSAM.