Law 3 major Republican senators propose bill to create backdoors for encrypted communications - Rino rising


bill:

Three Republican senators have proposed the Lawful Access to Encrypted Data Act which will require service providers to break end-to-end encryption and to provide backdoors to encrypted devices (like Apple’s iPhones). Senate Judiciary Committee Lindsey Graham (South Carolina), and Senators Tom Cotton (Arkansas) and Marsha Blackburn (Tennessee) introduced the Bill on June 23. The text of the Bill has is available here.


The aim of the Bill is to end the use of “warrant-proof” encrypted technology that is used by terrorists and other bad actors. On obtaining a warrant, device manufacturers and service providers would have to assist law enforcement with accessing encrypted data. The Attorney General would be able to issue directives to them to report on their ability to comply with court orders, including timelines for implementation, but the Attorney General cannot dictate platform architecture and any directive can be appealed in a federal court. The government would bear the cost of the recipient of the directive for compliance with the directive.


This is an interesting part of the Bill because in the WhatsApp traceability case in India, Facebook has repeatedly argued that “decryption assistance” under the IT (Procedure and Safeguards for Interception, Monitoring, and Decryption of Information) Rules, 2009 can only be carried out “to the extent possible”, that is, as much as the technology allows. The state of Tamil Nadu, on the other hand, argued that the Information Technology Act allows the state to decrypt the communication. At another hearing in Madras High Court, WhatsApp had argued that the state cannot dictate platform architecture. WhatsApp had also argued that even on a matter as serious as child pornography, WhatsApp’s hands were tied because of end-to-end encryption.



As per the Bill, the Attorney General will also create a prize competition to award participants to create “a lawful access solution in an encrypted environment”.


In the press release, the senators cited five instances where encrypted technologies had foiled law enforcement agencies’ attempts to get access to data:


  • The December 2019 terrorist attack at the Pensacola Naval Air Station carried out by a member of the Royal Saudi Air Force. Apple had at the time refused to assist FBI in recovering encrypted data from the phone as the company does not have access to device passwords, and has no backdoors to access encrypted information.
  • In a money-laundering investigation into the Sinaloa Cartel, despite having court-authorised wiretap order, agencies could not intercept communications because of use of WhatsApp’s end-to-end encrypted app.
  • An investigation into Ryan Lin, a computer scientist accused of cyberstalking, threatening, and harassing a number of victims revealed that he had collected a large amount of child sexual abuse material (CSAM). Since he had encrypted all his devices, law enforcement agencies could never recover the collection and thus could not identify and notify the victims.

“My position is clear: After law enforcement obtains the necessary court authorizations, they should be able to retrieve information to assist in their investigations,” Graham said. Cotton cited protection from child predators and terrorists as the reason for proposing the Bill that would “help put an end to the Wild West of crime on the Internet”. “What we have learned is that in the absence of a lawful warrant application process, terrorists, drug traffickers and child predators will exploit encrypted communications to run their operations,” Blackburn said.


US Attorney General William Barr lauded the Bill and said, “Encryption should keep us safe and secure, not provide an impenetrable safe haven for predators, terrorists, and criminals.”


This is not Graham’s first attempt at breaking encryption. In January, he had proposed the Eliminating Abusive and Rampant Neglect of Interactive Technologies Act of 2019, or EARN IT Act which was moved to Congress in March. Proposed under the garb of protecting children online, it sought to ban end-to-end encrypted platforms. It offered safe harbour to intermediaries only if they complied with certain guidelines to detect CSAM. Most critics interpreted it as a veiled attempt to target end-to-end encryption as such technology doesn’t allow service providers to scan the content for CSAM.

Where the world stands on end-to-end encryption

The governments of USA, UK and Australia had written an open letter to Facebook to not introduce end-to-end encryption, at least not without backdoors for law enforcement. Terrorism and online child sexual exploitation were the governments’ reasons for asking Facebook not to implement it. In response, Facebook and WhatsApp had absolutely refused to build backdoors and was supported by 58 civil society organisations around the world.


In India, the ad hoc Rajya Sabha committee, led by Jairam Ramesh, had recommended that law enforcement agencies be allowed to break end-to-end encryption to trace distributors of child pornography. The committee had been constituted to find out ways to prevent sexual abuse of children and prohibit access and circulation of child pornography on social media.


In 2018, Australia had passed a controversial Assistance and Access Act 2018 which allowed the police to force companies to create backdoors to encrypted communications. The law was reviewed by a parliamentary joint committee on intelligence and security in 2019. Under the Act now, the government is forbidden from building backdoors or building decryption, interception or data retention capabilities.
 
Three Republican senators have proposed the Lawful Access to Encrypted Data Act which will require service providers to break end-to-end encryption and to provide backdoors to encrypted devices (like Apple’s iPhones).

Backdoors already exist on these devices, so this is just redundant

The aim of the Bill is to end the use of “warrant-proof” encrypted technology that is used by terrorists and other bad actors.

By "terrorists" they mean "white nationalists" and "neo-nazis"... its literally the same excuse they've always used just named something different. 9-11 opened the fucking floodgates for these fuckers to snoop around EVERYTHING involving other people's lives and personal info and it's only gotten worse.

Also this is why you choose providers not involved with the five eyes

WhatsApp’s

Just as bad as Zoom. There are other alternatives.
 
I propose we install security cameras in everyone’s homes in every room. Now I promise we’ll only watch the recordings if we get a court order (*pinky swear*). It’s just terrorist and child predators commit crimes in their homes and it’s wrong! We’d never start changing the laws or abuse this power to silence political enemies or dissidents. And sure it’ll be networked and other entities might be able to gain access but that’s a small price for safety. You’re not a pedophile terrorist, right? Because only a pedophile terrorist could object to this!
 
Lindsay Graham's been gunning to kill encryption for a long time now, despite how doing so would fundamentally destroy the internet.

There's enough open-source encryption projects out there that can be set up and impossible to track, that this will only negatively affect law-abiding citizens...wait a second where have I heard this before????

Exactly. Good luck breaking AES-256. anyone can use it with some know-how, so it'll only hurt the normies.
 
Backdoors already exist on these devices, so this is just redundant



By "terrorists" they mean "white nationalists" and "neo-nazis"... its literally the same excuse they've always used just named something different. 9-11 opened the fucking floodgates for these fuckers to snoop around EVERYTHING involving other people's lives and personal info and it's only gotten worse.

Also this is why you choose providers not involved with the five eyes



Just as bad as Zoom. There are other alternatives.
I hope these faggots like pictures of big booty anime bitches because that's all their gonna find on my devices.
 
So are they upset that only the glow-in-the-dark‘s are allowed to continuously monitor track and surveil all your T electronic data?
 
I'm kinda confused that if someone is being stalked and harassed, shouldn't they already knew who the creep was?
 


The EARN IT Act, a controversial bill that has been criticized as a threat to encryption, was approved by a Senate committee on Thursday.

The Eliminating Abusive and Rampant Neglect of Interactive Technologies Act (EARN IT) passed through the Senate Judiciary Committee and is ostensibly intended to combat child pornography online, but critics say will kill online encryptionand stifle free speech on the internet.


The bill amends Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which gives internet companies universal liability from suit for conduct on their platforms, by stripping protection when users share child porn on their sites. It is sponsored by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), with numerous other co-sponsors.

Child pornography has proliferated on the internet in recent years. In February, the New York Times reported that 70 million images had been reported to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children last year.

If the EARN IT Act passes, companies could be liable if they knowingly allow users to share such content on their sites. It originally removed Section 230 immunity if they were merely “reckless” about allowing such on their platforms.


The previous version allowed companies to keep liability immunity if they adhered to “best practices,” as defined by a commission comprising mostly law enforcement created under the act.

Under an amendment added yesterday by the bill co-sponsors, the bill now opens the door for federal civil and state civil and criminal claims to be made against internet companies based on state laws.

Critics say this could result in a patchwork of regulations of varying standards, as each state is free to define “knowingly,” forcing companies to broadly conduct themselves under the most stringent standard. They also argue that it will make it overly risky for companies to allow certain speech, such as sexual health advice for teenagers, that has an intrinsic value.


Senators on the committee were universal in their praise of the bill’s purpose, though some expressed reservations about such unintended consequences.

In an effort to address concerns about encryption, the version passed today included an amendment by Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) barring criminal or civil liability for utilizing encryption or for being unable to decrypt communication on their site.

The bill’s critics were unswayed.


“This deeply flawed bill would give the [Department of Justice] and a panel of unelected mostly law enforcement officials unprecedented power over the Internet,” tweeted Fight for the Future following the bill’s passage.

Emma Llanso, director of the Center for Democracy & Technology, pointed out that, in spite of Graham’s assurances that the bill still provided immunity for companies that adhere to the ill-defined best practices, under yesterday’s amendment, it does not.

“Liability shield is revoked for state laws and federal civil claims, full stop,” Llanso tweeted.


Leahy’s amendment, though welcome, did not relieve all concerns, either.

“Despite the encryption protections the Leahy amendment seeks, it cannot anticipate and guard against all the actions state legislatures could take to restrict and outlaw effective encryption technologies or the measures that skittish general counsels at these companies could take to avoid costly suits,” Free Press Action Senior Policy Counsel Gaurav Laroia said in a statement following its passage.
 
The way the bill is written (amended) is almost entirely assuming that providers of services are large corporations, not ragtag outfits like Josh and the Farms. Now, obviously, down the line everyone is hosted or somehow permitted to exist (DNS, backbone, whatever) by a large corporation but it's really ambiguous to my mind how sites like this are expected to be treated under the bill, probably because it's written by boomers who don't realize such places exist.
 
Back