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.
 
The internet is more active now than it was ten years ago by a factor of probably 30 at least. The number of servers, websites, and internet connected devices have increased by a factor of 10, and that's not even including IoT devices. Speeds have quadrupled. Security has improved, encryption has improved. 802.11 has gone through two major revisions. Cellular data speeds are over 50 times faster.

I cannot fathom what measure you're using to declare that "the internet is dying".
I wouldn’t say it’s dying in the sense of “poof it’s gone”. I would say that it’s greed and ignorance by the boomers that’ll change it for the worse.
 
As with a lot of bills like this, my issue is less the intention and more the target selection.
 
  • Dumb
Reactions: frozenrunner
The internet is more active now than it was ten years ago by a factor of probably 30 at least. The number of servers, websites, and internet connected devices have increased by a factor of 10, and that's not even including IoT devices. Speeds have quadrupled. Security has improved, encryption has improved. 802.11 has gone through two major revisions. Cellular data speeds are over 50 times faster.

I cannot fathom what measure you're using to declare that "the internet is dying".
Back in the day, the internet was a wild west. Where anyone could get big and it wasn't as corporate. Now of days, its all corporate. There's little sections like the old net (the farms for examples), but it coming to a close. The underground (what's not on clearnet, not tor) is somewhat the same, but the corporatization of the internet is driving it further underground.

There's an info graphic showing how much the internet has changed in the last decade plus or so. Back in the mid-late 00s, there were about a 100 or so sites that used up most of the traffic of the internet. Now, its under 10. Alphabet, Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, and Netflix dominate pretty much all internet traffic. The former 3 basically control all communications online. Yes, there's alternatives to them, but corporations and normies aren't going to use them. And all those companies are controlled by left-leaning individuals who agree with the party's platform. Slowly, but surely, they are removing the ability to disagree with them. And crazy folks are all but willing to be foot soliders for them.

Yes, you can create your own platform. But if you get big enought and you don't toe the party line, you'll either get swallowed by one of the major compaies or they will get payment processors to block you from taking payments. We just saw this with NewProject2. Look at null, he's basically running his own ISP at this time just to keep the farms up. He has to use crypto or other methods to get payments to keep the site up.

This is all coming to a head. At some point, normies are going to stop using the internet because its too dangerous to do so. People get cancelled for saying their opinions and are getting fired from their jobs because of it. And they're not even controversial opinions. Just "I disagree with the ideas of the left and the media". If the mob doesn't get you, then the website will and delete or shadowban your post because it has "Harmful Content" in it. People will probably use facebook to communicate with family and friends, but that's it. I don't think the internet will go away totally, but its possible it'll become a desert of sites online but not in use. The EU just annouced they want to apply more censorship to sites. The US ones are just going to apply to everyone since they want more censorship to begin with. Its just a smokescreen to apply it.
 
The internet is more active now than it was ten years ago by a factor of probably 30 at least. The number of servers, websites, and internet connected devices have increased by a factor of 10, and that's not even including IoT devices. Speeds have quadrupled. Security has improved, encryption has improved. 802.11 has gone through two major revisions. Cellular data speeds are over 50 times faster.

I cannot fathom what measure you're using to declare that "the internet is dying".
When people here say it's dead, they don't mean it in a literal sense. They mean that it's no longer the same internet it was years ago.

A good example of what happens when something is "dead" is to look at YouTube. People are discouraged from uploading there because it's a lot harder to have a breakout viral hit in 2020 YouTube compared to 2007 YouTube, when actual people's videos would be on the frontpage. In the 2010s YouTube started shoving curated e-celebs to the frontpage (the Shane Dawsons, the RWJs, the iJustines, etc.) and eventually as their curated e-celebs had scandals they moved to the most boomer/normie tier content.

Then there's the money issue and the fear of demonetization mixed with Patreon's crackdowns has made it hard to make a living through YouTube. The end result of all of this is the current state of YouTube. Open up a private tab and look at YouTube now, you'll find the most cookie cutter content possible. You'll find sports and movie clips being promoted, generic MSN/Reddit frontpage tier "Look at THIS" videos, along with safe videos showing off cars and reality show tier clips of celebs flexing. In between you'll find content related to the latest corporate event, such as BLM or pride shit.

Meanwhile you could be a YouTube comedian who puts effort into their video and only have your videos get 5 digits, and lucky if your video hits the low 6 digits. It'll never break out of a corner of the internet because YouTube wants you to watch some rich celeb showing off his 4th Lambo again. A few years ago these videos might have hit a million. Everyone also had to open up Patreon accounts as a tip jar because YouTube ad money is a total fucking joke and it was even before demonetizations.
 
The internet is more active now than it was ten years ago by a factor of probably 30 at least. The number of servers, websites, and internet connected devices have increased by a factor of 10, and that's not even including IoT devices. Speeds have quadrupled. Security has improved, encryption has improved. 802.11 has gone through two major revisions. Cellular data speeds are over 50 times faster.

I cannot fathom what measure you're using to declare that "the internet is dying".
You will soon be able to enjoy your Facebook access through the NSA at quadrupled speed when Null will finally get tired of paying through the nose and being an international pariah for you to shit post in safety.
 
There's an info graphic showing how much the internet has changed in the last decade plus or so. Back in the mid-late 00s, there were about a 100 or so sites that used up most of the traffic of the internet. Now, its under 10. Alphabet, Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, and Netflix dominate pretty much all internet traffic. The former 3 basically control all communications online. Yes, there's alternatives to them, but corporations and normies aren't going to use them. And all those companies are controlled by left-leaning individuals who agree with the party's platform. Slowly, but surely, they are removing the ability to disagree with them. And crazy folks are all but willing to be foot soliders for them.
Does it matter if corporations and normies aren't using the same sites as you? Do you even want that? They weren't using the internet the same way as you or me in the past, and they aren't today.

If you take away the top 10, top 50, top whatever sites, you're left with what already existed, and it's basically in a form that's the same as before. There are still small forums. Thousands of them, where you can still say pretty much anything you want. That hasn't changed. There are still obscure chat clients, there are still sites the average person hasn't heard of. It's all still there. Nothing is really gone, nor has it changed.

The only real difference between 2005 and 2020 is that you can, if you so choose, join the corporate meat grinder.

A good example of what happens when something is "dead" is to look at YouTube. People are discouraged from uploading there because it's a lot harder to have a breakout viral hit in 2020 YouTube compared to 2007 YouTube, when actual people's videos would be on the frontpage. In the 2010s YouTube started shoving curated e-celebs to the frontpage (the Shane Dawsons, the RWJs, the iJustines, etc.) and eventually as their curated e-celebs had scandals they moved to the most boomer/normie tier content.
I've been active on Youtube since its inception, and I can tell you not much has changed. Accounts were being banned left and right for copyright infringement, no matter how minor. I couldn't even count how many of my favorite Youtube channels from the 2005-2010 era are gone forever. And let's not pretend The Algorithm didn't still dominate everything you saw. Look at this list of most viewed videos from 2007. Evolution of dance, I'll grant you. But below that? Music video. Music video. Music video. Music video. Literally an ad. More music videos.

Yes, there was a .00001% chance instead of a .00000001% chance of suddenly being rocketed into stardom, but going from "basically impossible" to "slightly more impossible" isn't really that big of a change.
 
Back