
Senator Blumenthal Mad That Zoom Not Offering the Encryption His Law Will Outlaw - pwg
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200401/16571344217/senator-blumenthal-is-super-mad-that-zoom-isnt-actually-offering-end-to-end-encryption-his-law-will-outlaw.shtml
======
BurningFrog
I don't think this is inconsistent.

What they want is encryption that only the _American_ government can tap.

Zoom is susceptible to the _Chinese_ government. They don't want that _at
all_.

~~~
mam2
Finally someone who thinks.

------
dylan604
From TFA: Gorsuch stated that “The [Supreme] Court has, after all, suggested
that individuals lack any reasonable expectation of privacy and so forfeit any
Fourth Amendment protections in materials they choose to share with third
parties.”

That's an awfully broad brush he is painting with there. If the third party I
choose to share information with is telling me that the data will be private,
then of course I have a reasonable expectation of privacy. If the site's TOS
claim to have rights to everything that you upload to the site, then they also
cannot claim the content to be private. You can claim in TOS that by
uploading, you grant rights to interact with the data to make it work within
the site (making multiple versions of images etc) but it can still be private.
If the TOS says by uploading content, I grant them the right to do anything
they can with the data including researching how to offer better experience on
said site, that content is no longer private.

~~~
BurningFrog
It's really weird to invoke Gorsuch in that way, since those quotes are from
an opinion where he wants to get rid of the "third party doctrine", have
stronger privacy protections, and require warrants in more cases.

[https://thehill.com/opinion/cybersecurity/394215-gorsuchs-
di...](https://thehill.com/opinion/cybersecurity/394215-gorsuchs-dissent-in-
carpenter-case-has-implications-for-the-future-of)

For the locked up, Gorsuch's dissent starts on page 99/119:
[https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-402_h315.pdf](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-402_h315.pdf)

------
nimbius
Blumenthal is a 74 year old millionaire. Is it possible hes just forgotten the
fact that hes presently on record as ardently opposed to competent encryption?
or has he been lead to co-sponsor FOSTA without being given an honest
explanation of what it actually does?

~~~
TheOperator
Blumenthal's position is that creating backdoors doesn't have anything to do
with weakening encryption. Considering he's tone deaf enough to actually tweet
this it seems more and more plausible that he actually BELIEVES his own vapid
bullshit and really is that stupid and ignorant.

~~~
pas
Most politicians are dangerous especially due to their irrational fanaticism
about whatever they believe. They want to shape the world to be what they
believe it should be without actually paying much attention to it.

------
ajeet_dhaliwal
This is funny, sad and familiar all at the same time. It’s not limited to
politicians either. I’ve seen top leadership in companies where they cut
resources or investment in an area, then when the quality or output suffers
make grandstanding speeches about how this must be improved, they’re either
totally clueless or psychos, or in some cases a bit of both.

~~~
dylan604
Or just realize that the mass population won't remember anything from 30
seconds ago, so they can wave their hands and make it sound like they are
doing the right thing. Spin only works with short memories.

I don't know if that makes them psychos or not, but they definitely are not
clueless.

------
lidHanteyk
Call your Congress-critters. I happen to benefit from being in Oregon,
represented by Sen. Wyden, who opposes EARN-IT, but I know that many of y'all
are in California may recognize Sen. Feinstein on the co-sponsor list [0].
Reach out now.

And, remember this next time she's up for re-election; this isn't her first
time. She also co-sponsored PIPA [1] along with Sens. Schumer and Gillibrand,
for the many of y'all in New York. You get who you vote for.

[0] [https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-
bill/339...](https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-
bill/3398/cosponsors)

[1] [https://www.congress.gov/bill/112th-congress/senate-
bill/968...](https://www.congress.gov/bill/112th-congress/senate-
bill/968/cosponsors)

~~~
solotronics
"What's good for thee is not for me." Taking away peoples rights may sound
appealing if its something you disagree with until the topic changes and it's
used against you.

~~~
braythwayt
It’s a difficult problem, because the reverse is also worth contemplating:
Giving people rights sounds appealing if it’s something you agree with, until
those rights are used against you.

At either extreme—no rights or complete anarchy—society breaks down.
Everything in between is a society trying to find the most workable
compromise.

~~~
starkd
"giving people rights" sounds kind of odd. No one has the power to "give"
rights to anyone else. Government can confer privileges and protect rights.
But rights themselves are inalienable.

~~~
Icathian
This is nice in theory. In practice you can take rights away (obviously) and
so protecting them instead is functionally identical to giving them. Mincing
words about inalienable rights from the inside of a gulag falls rather flat to
me.

~~~
nybble41
> In practice you can take rights away (obviously)

You can _infringe_ rights; that's not the same as taking them away. There is a
clear difference between having the _power_ to do something and having the
_right_ to do it. There is nothing unusual about having the right to do
something but lacking sufficient power to accomplish it. A right does not
disappear merely because one lacks the power to prevent it from being
infringed.

As the name implies, rights are fundamentally about right and wrong: they are
expressions of how one ought to act, or respond to another's actions. Saying
that a right exists is the same as saying that your own actions ought not
infringe that right for others. _Practicality_ is irrelevant. The "theory" (or
rather, philosophy) you've casually dismissed is the entire point of the
exercise.

Of course one needs power also, if only for self-defense, but power—or lack
thereof—does not dictate right and wrong. Power merely expands the range of
options available to you. Your _rights_ —the things that it would be _right
for you to do_ —are the same whether you are powerless or omnipotent.

So what exactly _are_ your rights? Well, that's for you to decide. Even true
omnipotence wouldn't be enough to grant anyone else the power to make that
decision for you.

------
naveen99
Encryption backdoors are like religion. Each government wants you to believe
in their backdoor and no other countries. Just like how most religions want
you to believe in their god, not anyone else’s. God is basically a backdoor to
your mind and soul.

------
whoisjuan
I hope one outcome of this crisis is that people start caring about who they
are electing as their leaders.

As Yuval Noah said, we are in the middle of the worst modern crisis this world
has seen and we have global leaders that can't inspire, organize and finance a
coordinated global response.

~~~
dylan604
It is hard to believe that in 2020 we cannot handle this type of situation
really any better than middle ages dealing with the plague. That maybe a bit
hyperbolic, but it's odd that we haven't protected ourselves better.

~~~
pas
The cost-benefit was not there. It was simply not worth it to take the
necessary hard actions to reach a level of difference in preparedness on a
group level. (Basically it would mean that anyone who wanted to "protect
themselves" would have to strategically move to one place, buy land, organize,
coordinate, get politically active, etc. It's a long and costly project.
Usually only sects and religions have the capacity to carry out things like
this.)

------
goatherders
Well that would be the first time a politician was completely worthless and
serving only his own interests

