EARN It Act Threatens to End End-to-End Encryption [US]

[RejZoR]

5 hours ago, Senzelian said:

This is what the Nazis did 80 years ago. They had "lawful access" to open private lettters, which is sort of the same as a encryptet end-to-end message, with the difference being, that your encryption key was basically nothing but trust. And now that we can't even trust the government and companies to handle our information with care, we're supposed to give up the last wall that was protecting our data. Funny...

 

I'd say that I'm lucky to live in Europe and that this doesn't affect me, but bullsh*t like this will sooner or later swim over to our continent.

Don't be so sure about that. Because if company is American and a fuck ton of them are, big ones like Google and Apple, I don't think they'll graciously exclude us Europeans because we are Europeans. I mean, just look at PRISM. Do you think we're excluded because of GDPR? I never gave Apple permission to give my data to US government. Yet they are FORCED to hand it over without any warrant or even a justified reason/cause. So, I think not. What makes you think this will?

 

Only way to be sure is E2EE (End to End Encryption) because it's way of operation is such that you can't hand over anything to bypass encryption unless you somehow physically manage to inject yourself into the connection via some sort of backdoor or exploit within the implementation.

 

Either way it's fucked up and totally not something you'd expect from a country that constantly screeches "FREEDOM" and "DEMOCRACY" and all that similar BS.

[Nowak]

Of course they're trying to push this through the senate while people are freaking out over a pandemic. Probably hoping that we're not paying attention.

 

I'll be sure to urge Warren and Markey to vote against this shit. A bill like this would be a gross misstep of power and must be defeated.

[Doobeedoo]

Hah gov wanting backdoors, but of course haha. What's new.

[jagdtigger]

15 hours ago, SansVarnic said:

Personally I wouldn't argue the internet is a right

Well then try and apply for a job without it....   (And the list goes on.)

[Senzelian]

13 hours ago, RejZoR said:

Don't be so sure about that. Because if company is American and a fuck ton of them are, big ones like Google and Apple, I don't think they'll graciously exclude us Europeans because we are Europeans. I mean, just look at PRISM. Do you think we're excluded because of GDPR? I never gave Apple permission to give my data to US government. Yet they are FORCED to hand it over without any warrant or even a justified reason/cause. So, I think not. What makes you think this will?

 

Only way to be sure is E2EE (End to End Encryption) because it's way of operation is such that you can't hand over anything to bypass encryption unless you somehow physically manage to inject yourself into the connection via some sort of backdoor or exploit within the implementation.

 

Either way it's fucked up and totally not something you'd expect from a country that constantly screeches "FREEDOM" and "DEMOCRACY" and all that similar BS.

That's what I was trying to say

[DrDerp]

22 hours ago, ARikozuM said:

 

Unfortunately, we've been stopped from trying to call the internet access a right for many years. So long as the internet is not a right, there is no BoR or Constitutional protection for it. 

Hoping that will change soon tbh.

[DragonTamer1]

How do we tell them to legally pack sand?

[ARikozuM]

34 minutes ago, DragonTamer1 said:

How do we tell them to legally pack sand?

By telling them to "f#ck off". It's literally that simple. 

 

By voting them out and/or giving their office a call to voice your concerns. It's times like these where I wish we would use our tech to start a direct democracy where the constituents have a public record of how they vote and if that contrasts the elected politician. 

[Bombastinator]

The original article is super vague. “Lawful access” is a strange term I don’t know enough about for one.  It may have a specific definition like “need a warrant” or it may not.  A lot of NGOs were mentioned as well that makes me a bit uncomfortable.  I don’t know enough about this to form an opinion.  The first reply goes right to nazis by word 5 though.  This generally makes me suspicious of the whole argument.

[Donut417]

They going to try to get this past during the mass hystria? Thinking no one will notice? Election year and all........smh. 

[Bombastinator]

4 minutes ago, Donut417 said:

They going to try to get this past during the mass hystria? Thinking no one will notice? Election year and all........smh. 

We don’t even know what the bill is.  Just a weird description of it.  

[rockking1379]

On 3/16/2020 at 5:29 PM, Shreyas1 said:

-snip-

I can personally attest for reasons I would rather not disclose that this is not necessary for the reasons they state. I know for a fact that FB monitor a their messaging platform for potentially exploitation of minors. And reports it! 
 

to set aside questions: no I did not commit any  heinous act. But I know someone who did. 

[ARikozuM]

10 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

We don’t even know what the bill is.  Just a weird description of it.  

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/3398/text

 

The exact bill, just like all others, are posted to the Congress.gov website. 

[SansVarnic]

11 hours ago, jagdtigger said:

Well then try and apply for a job without it....   (And the list goes on.)

Not a strong foundation of an argument...

And yes you can apply pretty easily, walk into a place and request for an application, depending on your country they must provide you with the means of one (at least in the US).

[ARikozuM]

3 minutes ago, SansVarnic said:

Not a strong foundation of an argument...

And yes you can apply pretty easily, walk into a place and request for an application, depending on your country they must provide you with the means of one (at least in the US).

No such law in the US. The only way for the two local hospitals' HR to accept applications is online and they have no area with computers for applying. 

 

Edit: And I could list several other large retailers that don't do anymore paper applications nor have designated areas for applying. Luckily 2 of the 3 local Publix actually have an PC for use. 

[Shreyas1]

1 hour ago, Bombastinator said:

The original article is super vague. “Lawful access” is a strange term I don’t know enough about for one.  It may have a specific definition like “need a warrant” or it may not.  A lot of NGOs were mentioned as well that makes me a bit uncomfortable.

Thing is, if the government can access it in any way ( even with a warrant ), then it is no longer end to end encryption. The whole point of this is that the government can now force backdoors in these messaging systems and such

 

Furthermore, do you really think they're going to stop at " just with a warrant "? Personally, I feel like this is another step towards the government removing the rights of people to pass messages with privacy from the government

 

[mr moose]

9 minutes ago, SansVarnic said:

Not a strong foundation of an argument...

And yes you can apply pretty easily, walk into a place and request for an application, depending on your country they must provide you with the means of one (at least in the US).

 

6 minutes ago, ARikozuM said:

No such law in the US. The only way for the two local hospitals' HR to accept applications is online and they have no area with computers for applying. 

 

Edit: And I could list several other large retailers that don't do anymore paper applications nor have designated areas for applying. Luckily 2 of the 3 local Publix actually have an PC for use. 

I would argue that the day the bulk of government information became easily accessible online was the day it became a right.   It's way too easy to hide physical documents in one state or location and then make it difficult for people to access thus giving an information advantage to those with internet access.   Even in this thread there is a link to the offending bill posted giving everyone here access to direct information that others would likely have to know the specific name of and find the relevant office to view.   Now maybe it isn't quite that hard to find a copy of the bill in the US,  but consider this from the position of people in struggle town, what would take me 15 minutes to read online might take them half a day and bus fares to attain.  I can arrange a mass gathering or protest. setup a petition, create a website and post it on several different websites and social media platforms before my ghetto counter part has even left his street.   Is that fair and reasonable distribution of government information?

[SansVarnic]

25 minutes ago, ARikozuM said:

No such law in the US. The only way for the two local hospitals' HR to accept applications is online and they have no area with computers for applying. 

 

Edit: And I could list several other large retailers that don't do anymore paper applications nor have designated areas for applying. Luckily 2 of the 3 local Publix actually have an PC for use. 

I didn't state there was. In the majority of states if you go to the local Dept. of Labor you will find that they require applications must be made available in a manner that the applicant can readily fill out even if that means the company must provide a location on site that the applicant can file via a terminal if necessary or via a paper application. No internet is required. Also, library's provide free access to the internet in 99% of major library's across the US.

I am now a small business owner and that is one of the things I came across in my setting up the business.

7 minutes ago, mr moose said:

I would argue that the day the bulk of government information became easily accessible online was the day it became a right.   It's way too easy to hide physical documents in one state or location and then make it difficult for people to access thus giving an information advantage to those with internet access.   Even in this thread there is a link to the offending bill posted giving everyone here access to direct information that others would likely have to know the specific name of and find the relevant office to view.   Now maybe it isn't quite that hard to find a copy of the bill in the US,  but consider this from the position of people in struggle town, what would take me 15 minutes to read online might take them half a day and bus fares to attain.  I can arrange a mass gathering or protest. setup a petition, create a website and post it on several different websites and social media platforms before my ghetto counter part has even left his street.   Is that fair and reasonable distribution of government information?

You make a point but as I mentioned above, the internet is made freely available in public libraries. Albeit I am not advocating that the internet cannot be a right just that its is not a right currently in the way it is right now. The is a paid service and because of that is a product not a right. Food is also a product and not a right.

Access to the information and the internet is made available in a variety of ways, freely, and one just needs to understand how to get it. Apart from that access to the internet for other things is a perk and that kind of access in my mind is a paid for service.

[jagdtigger]

44 minutes ago, SansVarnic said:

Not a strong foundation of an argument...

And yes you can apply pretty easily, walk into a place and request for an application, depending on your country they must provide you with the means of one (at least in the US).

Its a very mundane and commonplace task that requires internet so it is pretty solid IMO. And not the only one as the others pointed it out.

 

1 minute ago, SansVarnic said:

the internet is made freely available in public libraries

If you think that you can do anything more than casual browsing with those  you are making a grave mistake.

[SansVarnic]

46 minutes ago, jagdtigger said:

Its a very mundane and commonplace task that requires internet so it is pretty solid IMO. And not the only one as the others pointed it out.

 

If you think that you can do anything more than casual browsing with those  you are making a grave mistake.

You not reading my argument fully. I did not say that you could...

I do know of many and I have helped many with applying for jobs at libraries.

49 minutes ago, SansVarnic said:

Access to the information and the internet is made available in a variety of ways, freely, and one just needs to understand how to get it. Apart from that access to the internet for other things is a perk and that kind of access in my mind is a paid for service.

 

 

**edit

I just realized we are derailing this topic ... lets move on and take this up another time.

Edited March 18, 2020 by SansVarnic
See edit

[Bombastinator]

59 minutes ago, Shreyas1 said:

Thing is, if the government can access it in any way ( even with a warrant ), then it is no longer end to end encryption. The whole point of this is that the government can now force backdoors in these messaging systems and such

 

Furthermore, do you really think they're going to stop at " just with a warrant "? Personally, I feel like this is another step towards the government removing the rights of people to pass messages with privacy from the government

 

Will they stop at just a warrant?  Posed as a question implying you want me to think so but don’t actually think so yourself.  

Will they? “They” have ever since the beginning of the United States.  Forcing hack doors is an assumption.  They wouldn’t need to do such a thing though when all they have to do is show a warrant and have the thing decrypted for them.  It’s simpler.  Preventing warrantless wiretap, which is what such a thing would be, is sort of a classic.  Does it amount to warrantless wiretap?  I don’t know.  There is lots of assumption and implication that it might.  If it is, such a thing would be shot down immediately most likely.

 

Should warrantless wiretap be prevented?  Sure.  I’m not at all sure that is what is going on though.

[jagdtigger]

14 hours ago, SansVarnic said:

I do know of many and I have helped many with applying for jobs at libraries.

The most foolproof way the get you account stolen.....

[mr moose]

23 hours ago, Bombastinator said:

all they have to do is show a warrant and have the thing decrypted for them. 

The only way that can happen is if there is a backdoor.   That's why people are saying this is forcing companies to install a back door.

[Bombastinator]

14 minutes ago, mr moose said:

The only way that can happen is if there is a backdoor.   That's why people are saying this is forcing companies to install a back door.

Definition of end-to-end then.  I was assuming it would be done at one end rather than the middle.  You are correct though decryption in the middle would require one.  Still warrantless wiretap issues.

[mr moose]

1 hour ago, Bombastinator said:

Definition of end-to-end then.  I was assuming it would be done at one end rather than the middle.  You are correct though decryption in the middle would require one.  Still warrantless wiretap issues.

 

Any encryption that can be decrypted by someone other than the key holder by definition has a backdoor in it.   Other than brute force over 100/1000's of years there is no other way to decrypt.

 

EDIT: this is why so many internet articles and forum plebs misinterpreted Turnbull's claim of the laws of Australia trumping the laws of math.   Because you can't bypass e2e encryption without a backdoor.