Warrants are required for U.S. Mail. Likewise, the government should not have warrantless access to all electronic communication. It's an outrageous position.
this post was submitted on 17 Jul 2023
74 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
37747 readers
198 users here now
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Could this bill be the result of the recent court decision blocking gov work with social media companies?
I would not be surprised if the DEA was already working with tech companies and this bill is to get around the court and make the collaboration legal.
This doesn't target E2EE - that's the whole point of E2EE. It does target everyone else, though.
It does though, by holding them accountable if they "on purpose" blind themselves. Which is E2EE
So you can only trust a) open source or b) safe countries. Which is basically already the situation.
So you can only trust a) open source or b) safe countries. Which is basically already the situation.
It does though, by holding them accountable if they "on purpose" blind themselves. Which is E2EE
Except there are specific exclusions in the bill to address this. Hell, the three paragraphs before the one mentioning "deliberately blinding" are all dedicated to explaining why it doesn't apply to end-to-end encryption.
The only way you could think this bill targets end-to-end encryption is if you only read the terrible headline and didn't bother to read the actual bill. Before you freak out about paragraph 4, be sure to look at paragraphs 1-3.
That's doesn't sound like a 4th amendment violation or anything.
Not only does this bill not have anything to do with searches or seizures by the government, it goes out of its way not to require cloud providers to perform any searches of their own. Where are you seeing a 4th amendment violation?
view more: next ›