
Feinstein-Burr: The Bill That Bans Your Browser - throwaway2016a
https://www.justsecurity.org/30740/feinstein-burr-bill-bans-browser/
======
kabdib
Feinstein isn't stupid. She knows the bill is over the top.

They're deliberately taking an extreme position in an attempt to force a fake
compromise (which will ultimately wind up being just as catastrophic to the US
software industry). This is a classic tactic, and it works.

Senate Committee on Candy: "Gum is a problem. Okay, life sentences for anyone
caught chewing that evil stuff in public."

The Public: "WTF?"

SCC: "Okay, you're right, that's a little harsh. Let's meet in the middle and
make it only a $100,000 per stick fine."

The Public: "Whew!"

... and I'm guessing that any "compromise" would take the form of clauses
along the lines of the FISA courts being able to rubberstamp people into
compliance. In secrecy. In bulk.

I cannot help but wonder if one of the requirements for being on the Senate
Intelligence Committee is that the spooks have dramatically compromising
blackmail material on you. This would explain a lot. (On the other hand, I
believe that Feinstein is a genuinely bad person, and we would be better off
without her).

~~~
discardorama
> I believe that Feinstein is a genuinely bad person, and we would be better
> off without her

As a Californian, I am constantly ashamed at calling her "my" senator. Why the
fuck can't someone reasonable run against her? I guess for the same reason
that Bernie is having so much trouble: the Democratic Party is sorta like the
Communist Party in USSR; you have to be an insider to get anywhere.

~~~
incongruity
The two party system is decidedly broken. Primaries force us into accepting
evil or awful because we've been convinced that at least it's the lesser evil
and that we should be happy for that.

Bring about instant runoff voting or a similar system and you strip parties of
their power and we rid ourselves of self-serving incumbents quickly.

~~~
WildUtah
California doesn't have party primaries.

There's a June election and the top two vote winners go on to November, even
if from the same party. That's why California has a chance to prevent a second
Feinstein in Kamala Harris. It will be two Democrats in November: drug
prosecutor Harris and grassroots liberal Loretta Sanchez.

~~~
incongruity
That's _a start_ , but until you can let people stop having to pick between
voting their conscience and voting out of fear, the parties and incumbents can
still wield a lot of power, IMHO. Having an election that lets people rank
their preferences could remove the voting out of fear and let us actually
focus on voting for our hopes and our ideals.

------
afarrell
It is very interesting that the richest* industry in the US cannot make their
home senator bend to their will. Money can only buy advertising and campaign
staff. It can't buy votes and votes are what keep folks in office.

* Apple has $38 Billion in liquid assets [1]. Facebook has $18 Billion [2]. Amazon has $20 Billion [3]. Alphabet (fka Google) has $73 Billion [4]. Microsoft has $102 Billion [5]. In the last quarter of 2015, the largest companies by market capitalization were Apple, Alphabet, and Microsoft [6].

[1]
[https://ycharts.com/companies/AAPL/cash_on_hand](https://ycharts.com/companies/AAPL/cash_on_hand)
[2]
[https://ycharts.com/companies/FB/cash_on_hand](https://ycharts.com/companies/FB/cash_on_hand)
[3]
[https://ycharts.com/companies/AMZN/cash_on_hand](https://ycharts.com/companies/AMZN/cash_on_hand)
[4]
[https://ycharts.com/companies/GOOG/cash_on_hand](https://ycharts.com/companies/GOOG/cash_on_hand)
[5]
[https://ycharts.com/companies/MSFT/cash_on_hand](https://ycharts.com/companies/MSFT/cash_on_hand)
[6]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_public_corporations_by...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_public_corporations_by_market_capitalization)

~~~
incongruity
Recent articles would suggest that tech firms are spending a lot of money on
lobbyists: [http://www.wired.com/2015/07/google-facebook-amazon-
lobbying...](http://www.wired.com/2015/07/google-facebook-amazon-lobbying/)
and [http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2016/02/09/which-
tech-...](http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2016/02/09/which-tech-
companies-spend-the-most-on-lobbying.aspx)

And this database would suggest some tech companies fall into the 5th highest
spending industry:
[https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/top.php?showYear=2015&inde...](https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/top.php?showYear=2015&indexType=i)

So, a the question is, why, despite these efforts are we still seeing this
sort of thing? A few reasons, I'd guess...

1) Lobbying efforts by other industries and groups (law enforcement has a
vested interest here, for example)

2) A tendency to wanting to look tough on crime and terrorism, especially
going into an election year. Moderation and wise restraint are always a tough
sell in politics.

3) The Unbearable Asymmetry of Bullshit - politics edition. See
[http://quillette.com/2016/02/15/the-unbearable-asymmetry-
of-...](http://quillette.com/2016/02/15/the-unbearable-asymmetry-of-bullshit/)
and

4) A propensity on the part of many in government to want to hold more power
(closely related to point 2, but more self-serving).

~~~
sturgill
A great way to increase an industry's lobbying efforts is to introduce bills
like this that require a coordinated response.

~~~
bbcbasic
Why are you so sure your interests are always aligned with big tech interests?

~~~
sturgill
I don't believe that's what I implied. I was pointing out the discrepancy in
the parent's argument that an increase in lobbying spending should correlate
with a decrease in introductions of these types of bills. If these types of
bills are viewed as extortionist policies, and lobbying efforts as akin to
Mafia "protection" then these supposed discrepancies become more clear.

I'm getting too old to think anyone else has my best interests at heart. Any
one but me, that is.

------
callcallcall
Instead of complaining into the echo chamber of comments, here are some things
you can do to fight back:

Donate to the EFF:
[https://supporters.eff.org/donate/button](https://supporters.eff.org/donate/button)

Call your Reps: [http://TryVoices.com](http://TryVoices.com) (it takes 2
minutes)

Petition the President: [https://savecrypto.org/](https://savecrypto.org/)

~~~
archgoon
Thank you for pointing me to TryVoices, it was helpful in finding the contact
information for my representatives for Washington (state).

------
MBlume
Feinstein is an authoritarian, anti-tech disgrace to CA. If she doesn't retire
at the next election, she needs to be removed.

~~~
protomyth
Given the voters in California, someone needs to mount a primary challenge
because no one will beat her in the general election. That how Rep Eric Cantor
got ousted.

~~~
URSpider94
California doesn't have party primaries any longer. All candidates run in a
single primary, and the two highest vote-getters go on the ballot for
November. When she's up for re-election, her opponent on the November ballot
will almost certainly be a Democrat.

~~~
protomyth
I guess that's one way to make sure an incumbent is on the ticket and lock out
any hope of a 3rd party messing with your election.

~~~
URSpider94
No, it was actually intended to shake up the two-party system. The Republican
party is very weak in many parts of the state, so it's entirely possible
(likely even) that that second candidate could be another Democrat, or even a
third-party Green or Libertarian candidate. The point is that it encourages
the non-majority party to field candidates that appeal to the overall
populace, instead of to a narrow interest group (like conservative Republicans
in Berkeley).

~~~
protomyth
Shaking up the two party system by likely replacing it with a one party system
sounds really bad. It also hurts 3rd parties badly by requiring a shorter time
frame and a lot more money to be any influence on the election. This sounds
like a way to cement the power of the current ruling party.

------
Aelinsaar
What an incredible blend of "isn't feasible" with "terrible idea" and just a
dash of "wildly illegal".

------
koolba
Rather than dealing with these cockamamie laws piecemeal, lets attack the root
of the problem: term limits and age caps.

That way instead of waiting for these half senile and all corrupt politicians
to meet their maker, we introduce new blood into the system that hopefully
understands the modern American people and modern technology.

~~~
joesmo
I've always thought this. Limit all representatives, especially the president,
to one term. That way they have no motivation to waste their time and our
money on getting reelected. You don't even need to touch age then. If you then
make it illegal for all representatives, especially the president, to accept
donations and maybe give each candidate a set sum to spend we might actually
bring democracy back. I'm certainly not holding my breath though. It's
basically asking Congress and the president to commit permanent political
suicide.

~~~
dmckeon
Consider 3 groups: elected officials, their staffers, and lobbyists. Strict
term limits would remove office-holders and any expertise accumulated in
whatever term they served, while the other two groups would tend to conserve
accumulated expertise, relationships, etc. Persistent incumbency may be bad,
but strict term limits seem worse.

~~~
joesmo
Worse how? How can it be worse than a government that isn't run by the people?
I'd rather the government doesn't get anything done than the current situation
where the government doesn't get anything done and the only focus is on
getting re-elected and raising money. Considering that representatives in
Congress spend more time raising money for re-election than anything else by
far, I can't see how it could be worse to have the actually do the jobs they
were elected to do and swore an oath to do.

------
kiba
Is Feinstein just plain ignorant, or willfully ignorant?

~~~
ctdonath
Willfully ignorant. She has been a staunch opponent of "gun rights" (where you
& I stand on it matters little for this post), with a very long train of
making staggeringly ignorant comments about the subject - long enough, with
enough intense involvement by both sides, to show she can't possibly be "plain
ignorant" as at some point you have to absorb some objective facts about the
matter and show some competent basis for your stance (say, when debating a
subject you _should_ know enough about the opposing view to be able to present
a competent argument on their behalf). With that kind of precedent in place,
it's safe to conclude she knows little - and literally _wants_ to know little
- about the objective facts of the encryption issue.

------
coldcode
Eventually we will be reduced to smoke signals in the sky. Unless its over
Washington DC where the hot air is moving fast.

------
morgante
Feinstein is a disgrace. It continues to confound me that the home of the US
technology industry is represented by someone so diametrically opposed to
technical interests.

If firms actually care about issues (and their international markets), they
should be donating substantial sums to get rid of her.

------
krisroadruck
Why is Feinsteins name attached to every piece of shit legislation that comes
out. Does she just really hate freedom or something? Literally every bill that
had the internet up in arms over the past 4 years had her name on it.

~~~
fleitz
She's more of an equality of outcome person than a equality of opportunity
person. It leads to drastically different definitions of what a free society
looks like.

Most people aren't interested in capitalist striving, they want to live an
average life free from any real danger.

------
joesmo
"As a practical matter, the (lawful) production of secure software in the
United States becomes the exclusive domain of corporate entities large and
rich enough to support (and at least attempt to secure) some kind of key-
escrow and law enforcement compliance infrastructure."

That's assuming that anyone still wants to do business with them. Most
companies will just wither and die because consumers and especially the
enterprise will move on to their competitors outside the US. I really can't
think of a better way to destroy the US technology sector than bills like
this.

------
Buttons840
How would this effect hashing algorithms? You can't reverse a password hash
for example. Probably the least of the many many problems this bill would
cause.

~~~
majewsky
You can always reverse a password hash. It just takes fucking forever. ;)

~~~
whoopdedo
But you're not reversing it, you're only brute-forcing a collision. It won't
tell you if you've found the original password or a different string that
coincidentally hashes the same with that particular algorithm.

------
bbcbasic
Gives a whole new meaning to the padlock icon on the address bar.

------
intrasight
Stupid law. Most will ignore it. There will be little enforcement. But that is
what makes it truly dangerous - selective enforcement.

As this law can't be applied to open source software, I'm curious if it will
result in the accelerated adoption of OSS.

~~~
kelnos
What makes you think that? Anyone who worked on non-compliant software who
lives in the US (or in a US-friendly jurisdiction) would likely be found
liable, and fined and/or jailed.

~~~
intrasight
Not a chance

------
eggy
She must totally ignorant of the matter, or have hired poor technical staff
around her, or pure as the driven snow, since this will only pave the way for
more breaches and dissemination of government and governing persons data on
the internet, not just private citizens. I don't understand how they think
there is a way to meet their aims without knocking down the whole house of
cards. Perhaps when her data is hacked, and all of her personal and financial
dealings are made public? I can see this becoming an Anonymous headline soon.

------
zkhalique
Yeah, this is bordering on ridiculous. But, if any of this is contemplated,
you can bet it's also being contemplated in China, Russia and everywhere else.

The standard response should be: "would you want us to do the same for foreign
governments?"

~~~
the_ancient
>>would you want us to do the same for foreign governments?

Well ofcourse the wizards making magic... err software would have to ensure no
other government ever will be able to access the data..

Only the Good Guys (American Government Agents) are the only that should
possess the magic to unlock the wizard's text...

~~~
zkhalique
But what makes the "would have to" follow, let alone be enforceable?

 _ANY_ sovereign government can pass a bill saying the same thing about any
maker of any software, and they might even have long-arm statutes via
agreements between them. It's not like Google doesn't have subsidiaries in
China, and it's not like they're not restricted in China.

------
1234098123
[https://act.eff.org/action/tell-congress-stop-the-burr-
feins...](https://act.eff.org/action/tell-congress-stop-the-burr-feinstein-
backdoor-proposal)

------
HelloNurse
Would this bill allow USA residents to use sane browsers, mandating backdoors
in USA-made browsers but permitting import of crypto software from the free
world? Or is the "loophole" closed by other bills?

------
zmanian
I think it is possible to create a movement against Feinstein. But it would be
most powerful to turn the party against her.

I don't think she would hold her position if other Democrats came to her and
said she was hurting fundraising.

------
puppetmaster3
You had me at Feinstein.

Some software is approved. Others, including open source is banned: dangerous.

Feinstein!

(unrelated Feinstein
[http://youtube.com/watch?v=HVOuK_KB9ew](http://youtube.com/watch?v=HVOuK_KB9ew)
)

------
nickysielicki
I think the solution to all of this starts with the creating alternative
computer networks to the internet. You should be able to ping your neighbor
without paying Comcast for the privilege. Once communities own our own local
networks, and once our neighboring communities are linked, private networks
will blossom and this nonsense will fade away.

I don't think the layman associates computer network traffic with speech. But
if you make private networks associated with localities, I think they'll
righly start to see federal regulation as overbearing.

(Aside: if you're in favor of federally mandated net neutrality, I think you
owe it to yourself to think about what kind of effect it could have on that
type of local network development.)

~~~
Retra
Here's some 'Truth' for you: your post is indicative of the exact kind of
thinking that leads people to demand back doors on encryption in the first
place.

"I think the solution to all of this starts with creating alternative means to
access encrypted networks. You should be able to key into the someone's
computer without doing any crypto work for the privilege. Once crypto comes
with back doors, and the keys our in our hands, freedom will blossom and
terrorist protections will fade away."

Maybe if your solution were in any way practical or realistic, or if you --
the layman -- knew the difference between how to actually solve a problem and
merely proposing fantastical solutions, we wouldn't need this discussion in
the first place.

~~~
nickysielicki
You can fuck right off with the personal attacks, mate. You're wrong, too.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athens_Wireless_Metropolitan_N...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athens_Wireless_Metropolitan_Network)

[https://guifi.net/en](https://guifi.net/en)

[http://www.gowasabi.net/](http://www.gowasabi.net/)

[https://networkbogota.org/](https://networkbogota.org/)

[https://wlan-si.net/en/](https://wlan-si.net/en/)

[https://freifunk.net//en/](https://freifunk.net//en/)

And that's not even mentioning telecom cooperatives and municipal ISPs that
are popping up.

> Maybe if your solution were in any way practical or realistic

> fantastical solutions

The broader point was about the idea that the average American doesn't see
computer networks as something that _can_ be local, and how that might affect
how they interpret computer communication in the context of the first
amendment. And (I think, at least) that would be an interesting point in its
own right.

But it doesn't have to be, because this is reality, and it's a recent
development due to new software and hardware developments. And it's growing.

So fuck off.

~~~
Retra
New networks popping up in no way protects anyone from having their network
regulated by the government, particularly if they start interfacing with and
replacing the existing networks.

~~~
nickysielicki
I'm not suggesting it prevents regulation in-and-of itself, but that it will
make federal regulation untenable by breaking down the misconception that
computer networking is necessarily geospatially agnostic.

If local communities have their own physical networks running internal
services, and if average people start using them, I think they'll start seeing
computer networks as able to be more than one homogenous _cyberspace_. Federal
regulation doesn't seem so out-of-place when your connections are presumably
going all over the world. But if you drop that assumption, I think smaller
governments will want autonomy.

(I also want to apoligize for my tone above. Not necessary and not conducive
to conversation.)

------
mlakkadshaw
This bill should be named as Feinstein's Monster

------
SeanDav
The nett result of this will be US business will be less and less trusted by
the rest of the world and bypassed wherever possible.

------
PretzelFisch
Odd didn't Feinstein previously try to pass a bill requiring companies to
encrypt customer data like ssn and what not?

~~~
kijin
She seems to be pro-encryption as long as it comes with a backdoor.

------
shitgoose
first they take your high capacity mags. Then they take your certs.

------
kempe
Herp derp unicorn...

------
quantum_state
Ppl should koi force to throw these "law maker" out before they do greater
damage to the rights of the citizens.

