
John McCain wants to outlaw encryption that the US government can't crack - declan
http://www.businessinsider.com/john-mccain-calls-anti-encryption-legislation-paris-attacks-isis-back-doors-2015-11
======
ecdavis
Is it really worth leaving a thoughtful comment about such an ignorant
statement?

It's clear to me that these people have no idea what encryption actually is
and only have a cursory understanding of what it does. They're aware that
criminals and terrorists can use encryption to communicate covertly. That's
why they want to ban it. Are they also aware that the exact same technology is
used to protect their online banking? To protect against attacks like the Sony
hack? Do they know that there is a huge segment of the economy that relies on
strong encryption to do business?

It's pretty clear at this point that they don't care about privacy. Perhaps if
the ramifications are explained to them in a different way they would be more
open to dissenting points of view.

EDIT: The recent news stories have motivated me to renew my support for the
EFF. I'd encourage anyone with disposable income to do the same.

~~~
joering2
> Are they also aware that the exact same technology is used to protect their
> online banking?

Yes they are -- that's why it's not a matter of passing a one-page bill
overnight, but rather a more complex piece of legislation that in order to be
done right, need time and bi-partisan involvement.

And I found it hard to believe you don't see a difference between encrypting
your bank transaction, and encrypting your online conversation.

Disclosure: I'm against all type of bans on any encryption.

~~~
TeMPOraL
It shouldn't be hard to believe because _there is no difference whatsoever_.
You could do bank transactions over chat, you could run chat over bank
transactions. Both are fundamentally the same thing. The mathematical model
that says that Alice exchanges information with Bob is not a simplification,
it's fundamentally how it works. Content is arbitrary and doesn't matter.

~~~
techdragon
Put more simply. If the terrorist wants to stay safe they would exploit any
loophole. If conversation is backdoored but banking is not, they could use
online banking and code word type messages in transaction descriptions that
move trivial amounts of money back and forth between multiple accounts.

~~~
plonh
You are ignoring the bandwidth differences between protocols.

~~~
TeMPOraL
You don't need much bandwidth. The Internet is creating a false sense of data
size because nowadays even a simple hello world seems to require a multi-
megabyte download. But actual communication for practical purposes can be done
in just _bytes_. There's more than enough space in transfer title to
communicate a lot of stuff, even without a pre-arranged set of shortcuts, and
in planning stages, you don't need real-time communication anyway.

(Note, this comment would fit in one or two bank tranfers).

------
an_account
I love how Republicans believe that outlawing guns won't stop criminals from
having guns while at the same time believing that outlawing encryption will
keep criminals from using encryption.

Encryption methods are far easier to transport and spread illegally than gun
are.

~~~
gnoway
"Republicans"

Rand Paul is pretty openly pro-encryption. Hillary Clinton is equivocating; I
think she's probably anti-encryption. These may be exceptions that prove the
rule but I think what we're really seeing is a combination of ignorance,
pandering and authoritarianism across the spectrum.

~~~
chrischen
Isn't Rand Paul a libertarian?

~~~
vezzy-fnord
Only if you considerably stretch the definition. He's a moderate Republican
closer to old school states' rights conservatism than neoconservatism, but
certainly not a libertarian, though he does exploit the label to make himself
look edgy.

~~~
jessaustin
This sort of true-Scotsmanning does libertarianism no favors. I say that
having voted for Gary Johnson last time around. Rand Paul would be better for
USA residents and for the world than any president in my lifetime has been. Of
course he isn't perfect, but no one who was would have anything to do with
national government.

~~~
vezzy-fnord
It isn't true-Scotsmanning, it's a factual statement. Make no mistake, I too
consider Rand Paul to be among the higher stock available in the U.S.
mainstream political scene.

------
colmvp
> "...News emerging from Paris — as well as evidence from a Belgian ISIS raid
> in January — suggests that the ISIS terror networks involved were
> communicating in the clear, and that the data on their smartphones was not
> encrypted."

[https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20151118/08474732854/after...](https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20151118/08474732854/after-
endless-demonization-encryption-police-find-paris-attackers-coordinated-via-
unencrypted-sms.shtml)

~~~
shaftway
Does it matter? I can hear it now:

"B-b-but they _could_ have, and if they had we wouldn't have been able to
intercept it."

------
vonklaus
This is Edward Snowden's fault. Let's look at the facts:

* Edward Snowden declared war against terrorists.

* Edward Snowden started indescriminently bombing villages in the middle east.

* Edward Snowden created massive ill will against America, then left a huge power vacuum in the region by pulling out after, dare I say it, conducting terrorism against the native inhabitants.

So, Ed, wherever you are, this is your fault.

~~~
stvswn
"Indescriminately(sic) bombing?" "conducting terrorism?"

I led a platoon in Iraq, and we did nothing of the sort.

I'm fine with opposition to U.S. foreign policy; this is just lazy slander,
and it shows a very shallow understanding of what actually happened.

~~~
woodman
> I led a platoon in Iraq, and we did nothing of the sort.

I fought in Fallujah; I would be very surprised to hear from the residents
that they did not feel terrorized or modify their behavior in response to our
activities. I have no doubt that you don't see yourself in that light, but
your intents mean very little to those people.

Putting too much weight on either perspective, the action's originator or
recipient, leads to all sorts of silliness (the concept of hate crimes,
donglegate, etc). Try to detach yourself and just consider the facts.

~~~
stvswn
You equate "they felt terrorized" with "terrorism." Terrorism is the
deliberate targeting of civilians in order to cause fear for political ends.
It's not "civilians being scared" and definitely not "civilians modified their
behavior." I have no doubt civilians lived (and sometimes died) through
horrible battles. In examining the ethics of violent conflict it absolutely
does matter whether civilians were targeted or not. If you saw anyone
deliberately harm civilians, or use disproportionate force against an enemy
that resulted in needless civilian death, you should report it and hopefully
that person goes to jail. I have no doubt some people did terrible things.
That's a far, far distance from the general claim that the U.S. was
"indiscriminate" or "conducted terrorism."

------
SCAQTony
This would be a suspension of the 4th and 5th amendment. Correct me if I am
wrong.

"...A valid search warrant must meet four requirements: (1) the warrant must
be filed in good faith by a law enforcement officer; (2) the warrant must be
based on reliable information showing probable cause to search; (3) the
warrant must be issued by a neutral and detached magistrate; and (4) the
warrant must state specifically the place to be searched and the items to be
seized..."

[https://www.justia.com/criminal/docs/search-seizure-
faq.html](https://www.justia.com/criminal/docs/search-seizure-faq.html)

This McCain B.S. implies that the defendant will never be served with a
warrant. This secret warrant will be issued by eleven secret judges, serving a
seven year term, picked by one man "...without any supplemental confirmation
from the other two branches of government."

This does not meet the standards of being neutral per point number 3 above.
WOW!

[http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/17/politics/surveillance-
court/](http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/17/politics/surveillance-court/)

~~~
nicholaides
It's also a 2nd amendment issue. From wikipedia:

 _Since World War II, many governments, including the U.S. and its NATO
allies, have regulated the export of cryptography for national security
considerations, and, as late as 1992, cryptography was on the U.S. Munitions
List as an Auxiliary Military Equipment._

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_of_cryptography_from_th...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_of_cryptography_from_the_United_States)

------
biot

      "This move towards stronger encryption was largely brought about by
       the revelations of now-exiled NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden..."
    

It's encouraging to see publications referring to him as a whistleblower.

------
dev1n
We really need to set an age limit on how old people can get while staying in
office before being forced to retire. We already prevent people younger than
40 from running for President. Why should we let people older than 65 do it?
What's the difference?

~~~
vonklaus
No. This makes little sense, is arbitrary and absurd. We need people to be
qualified by measurable factors like degrees, years working in a particular
field, ability or intelligence and/or other relevant facts.

John McCain is a good man, I think he has good intentions, and is very
qualified for certain positions. This is just not one of them, and it isn't
because I disagree with him (I do), it is because he isn't qualified to make
decisions about computer science or technology.

~~~
merpnderp
Isn't he being briefed by US intelligence agencies?

~~~
vonklaus
bit of a conflict there though, yeah?

------
pera
How can you tell the difference between, say, an OTP encrypted message and a
random number?

To outlaw encryption that "the US govt can't crack" they have to outlaw random
numbers hah, yeah.. I totally can imagine a future where PRNGs must be
approved by the US government.

------
vonklaus
home encryption is killing government,

...and it's illegal.

The US government is a monolithic institution that is governed by the mandate
"move slow and break things". They can only legislate what they can enforce.
They can't stop people sharing music, they can't stop people sharing data, and
they sure as fuck won't be able to stop encryption.

They definitely will be able to drive it underground and limit the average
American's privacy though. It is just that, as far as anyone can be a typical
America, they aren't a hardened radicalized terrorist. Let's take stock of the
wars against nouns:

* War on Drugs, massive failure.

* War on Terror, not only failure, likely made problem worse.

* War on Math, if we measure this by people prevented from using encryption, then we are losing. However, if we measure this by student test scores relative to other nations, we are def. winning the war against math.

------
whoopdedo
Can we have a new rule when laws are proposed? Whenever you see the headline
"(name of politician) wants to pass a law which will do ____" it should be
rewritten to "Lobbyists have convinced (name of politician) that they need a
law which will do _____".

From opensecrets.org:

 _Industry Favorite_

John McCain is a top recipient from the following industries in 2015-2016:

    
    
        Cable & satellite TV production (#1)
        Defense Aerospace (#1)
        Defense Electronics (#1)
        For-profit Education (#1)
        Misc Defense (#1)
    

Total PAC Money for 2015-2016: $700,600

    
    
        Ideological/Single-Issue	$185,900
        Defense			$116,800
        Communications/Electronics	$61,600
        Energy & Natural Resources	$75,300
        Finance, Insurance & Real Estate	$71,500
        Lawyers & Lobbyists		$51,400

~~~
Gibbon1
It's amazing how cheaply the public interest gets sold out for.

~~~
jessaustin
Really! To me, this suggests that the fundamental problem is the enormous
_size_ of USA. If it were replaced by twenty other nations each a twentieth
the size, could the parasites even _afford_ to subvert the popular will and
well-being? Divide all those bribes by 20, and you're not left with much to
corrupt a reasonable person.

~~~
whoopdedo
> twenty other nations

Why not fifty-seven?

------
mark-r
Let's legislate Pi=3 while we're at it.

I'd hate to live in a world where only criminals could be secure.

------
cblock811
I swear the media has a bias too. So many articles are bashing encryption
lately. I wish I could do more to fight misinformation and general ignorance
than posting on my Facebook though. Ideas?

~~~
gnoway
Data on people seems to be what everyone wants. We have big data collectors
like Google and Facebook firmly on the pro-encryption side, ensuring your
privacy. And that the only parties able to mine your Google and Facebook
activities are Google and Facebook.

On the other hand, some media companies are also ISPs now (Comcast, TWC). They
don't really have destination sites collecting your general behavior, but they
have something better - all your traffic in transit. Shame it's encrypted.

------
csn
USA to ban too difficult math problems?

Doesn't this mean their citizens would be less safe from foreign (and
domestic) spies than foreigners are from their spies? Doesn't this mean that
foreign businesses who actually care about their security would abandon their
software and IT services? If they can crack it, others can, or will learn soon
to, crack it.

------
such_a_casual
So basically he wants to ensure that black hatters will be able to crack all
encryption in the United States? If the U.S. Government can crack something,
than that means there is a human element that will always be exploitable. If a
group of people can crack an encryption, than that group of people is the
weakness. Someone will be social engineered, hacked, or compromised
successfully eventually. They might even just make a stupid mistake. This
basically ensures that whatever the United States is using to crack
encryptions will leak eventually causing legal encryption to be completely
insecure until the government releases its next update, until that leaks as
well, and we end up with a cycle of fuckery on our hands. Yeah, let's not do
that.

> Obama administration says it has no plans to legislate against strong
> encryption, and the UK government says it doesn't either.

So It doesn't look like we have to worry. The argument for legislation is
idiotic. Terrorists won't care if it's legal or not to use strong encryption.
You would only be forcing law abiding citizens to use weak encryption.

------
cs702
Evidently he doesn't realize that this is like asking for addition or
subtraction to be outlawed, which is nonsensical.

Like adding, subtracting, multiplying, and dividing, encrypting is a
mathematical operation that transforms numbers into other numbers.

~~~
serge2k
How is that relevant?

I disagree with him too, but this is a lousy argument.

~~~
stanleydrew
It's a bit of a reducto-ad-absurdum simplification, but the argument is
pointing out the fact that most people wouldn't ever consider valid a law that
would prevent simpler mathematical operations, so why should we consider the
validity of a law that would try to outlaw complicated mathematical
operations.

How would it even be possible to enforce it?

~~~
Spivak
>How would it even be possible to enforce it?

Mass surveillance + "if we cant understand your data and isn't in one of the
prescribed formats then you are a criminal and can be charged on that fact
alone."

------
orliesaurus
does that mean we'll find out what encyption the US gov can crack?

~~~
antod
That was my first thought too. The bad guys will just make sure they stick to
the uncrackable illegal stuff :)

------
javajosh
John McCain also selected Sarah Palin as his running mate in 2008. People
understand that McCain's heart is usually in the right place, his judgement
isn't exactly sound.

------
will_pseudonym
I just wrote to both Senators and my Representative telling them not to
support this legislation. I linked to this discussion for them to learn more.
Please contact your Congressional representatives today!

[https://www.opencongress.org/people/zipcodelookup](https://www.opencongress.org/people/zipcodelookup)

------
computronus
Including the one-time pad? I suppose paper memo pads need to be outlawed as
encryption technology then.

------
workitout
Earth to Republicans, if you want to alienate people under 30, please listen
to John McCain.

~~~
mavdi
They don't give a shit as under 30s don't vote anyway.

------
thetruthseeker1
I am not sure how this can be implemented effectively in a globalized world!
Lets say we take John McCain's advice and corporations give america a back
door to read encrypted data, what would other countries do? Would they make
laws forcing corporations to give back-doors on the encrypted data as well?
Eventually, one of these countries could sell that information to unscrupulous
hackers?

Also, such a mechanism will only catch unwitting gmail like app using
terrorists (assuming google co-operates with USA). I would guess vast majority
of terrorists will still encrypt the data themselves without relying on
underlying app to do so?

------
crdb
Thought: s/encryption/guns/

Why do politicians not have identical positions on both guns and privacy? The
root argument is the same: that citizen can, or can't, be trusted.

Yet almost all the pro guns are anti privacy and vice versa.

------
martin1975
How about we (the USA) as a country re-adjust our attitude/foreign policy?
That goes light years further toward averting any future terrorist attacks. I
don't condone ISIS even one bit, but we would be fools to not admit our role
in shaping their current behavior.

So either we give - by adjusting our attitude or if we choose to stay
entrenched on our position, then go all the way and nuke the crap out of them.

I don't like middle of the road solutions... maybe it's just me.

------
andrewchambers
Whoever tries to pass that law is going to realize the mistake they made when
it comes time to enforce it and they have to delete code from nearly every
computer in the country.

Other countries like Russia will be able to laughably crack US citizens bank
accounts, email accounts etc if this was actually done.

It will be a massive public relations nightmare for anyone who actually tries
to make this reality.

------
DanBC
CLIPPER CHIP & KEY ESCROW.

We had this argument in 1993.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clipper_chip](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clipper_chip)

There's plenty of discussion from then around the problems caused by this
arrangement, so it might be a good idea to find the best of it, and dust it
off.

------
rezashirazian
John McCain also wanted to be president. I wouldn't worry too much about what
John McCain wants.

------
sandyvid
I am picturing a scene in which few of our ancestors, out of fear for fire,
and seeing someone hurt by fire, decided to ban making fire altogether. Since
they don't know about "fire", we better educate them.

------
jmspring
The Senior Senator from Arizona needs to just retire and enjoy his twilight
years. There was a time where I found him interesting, engaging, and worth
voting for. It's been several years since that was the case.

------
sharjeel
Another idea: Outlaw terrorism

------
Shivetya
and people wonder why Republicans (Libertarians mostly) didn't turn out to
vote for him 2008, here is a hint - it wasn't Palin that was the stain on that
ticket. We remember McCain/Feingold

------
Spooky23
Can we outlaw John McCain?

This is the guy who gave us Sarah Palin. He needs to go away.

------
psyonix
If we outlaw such encryption only outlaws will have it.

------
echaozh
Why not outlaw locks the government cannot pick and vaults the government
cannot break into? They're quite the same thing, just less digital.

------
beedogs
John McCain has no idea what he's talking about with regards to technology and
should probably refrain from talking about it.

------
programminggeek
If our government can crack it, so can many other governments, hacker groups,
corporations, and so on. Oh well, back to rot13.

------
HillaryBriss
This is a bit like a Republican version of gun control laws.

If real encryption is outlawed, only criminals will have real encryption.

------
ankurdhama
I can summarize all the comments in one comment - Unfortunately the
world(human society) is run by politicians.

------
sharemywin
it's funny they are ok with everyone having guns but encryption that's the
worst kind of evil.

------
lasermike026
I refuse to give up my liberty and security over terrorism or some other
infantile boogeyman.

------
Reason077
So, privacy is like guns?

Nice to have, but something we need to give up in order to live in a safer
society?

------
heapcity
Sounds like a good pretext for putting anyone politically inexpedient into
prison.

------
grandalf
If there was ever a stupid and despicable human being who managed to become
relatively powerful, it's John McCain.

------
davesque
Let's just outlaw math.

------
dulob
why we call a technology encryption if it can be cracked?

------
umeboshi
I want to outlaw sputtering old gov officials who won't let go and gracefully
head out to pasture.

------
cycrutchfield
[http://i.imgur.com/nnwVNui.png](http://i.imgur.com/nnwVNui.png)

------
idibidiart
John McCain is partly responsible for the rise of ISIS by having architected
the funding of the Free Syrian Army whose members went off to form ISIS and
who continues to be funded by us, with a great deal of the resources finding
their way into ISIS hands.

~~~
GavinMcG
I've seen this claim floating around that we're funding the FSA which is just
channeling money to ISIS, but I haven't been able to find any reliable source.
Could you please link to something that backs that up?

~~~
mavdi
[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/1...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/11882195/US-
trained-Division-30-rebels-betrayed-US-and-hand-weapons-over-to-al-Qaedas-
affiliate-in-Syria.html)

[http://abcnews.go.com/International/top-syrian-warns-
congres...](http://abcnews.go.com/International/top-syrian-warns-congress-
moderate-rebels-sell-weapons/story?id=25539314)

[http://news.yahoo.com/islamic-state-fighters-using-us-
arms-s...](http://news.yahoo.com/islamic-state-fighters-using-us-arms-
study-085735376.html)

