During Apple very public legal battle vs FBI, Tim Cook suggested the encryption debate should take place in Congress . Be careful what you wish for. The proposed new draft law Congress encryption was released. It is not pretty.
The controversial draft law encryption project was sponsored by Senators Richard Burr and Dianne Feinstein. They call it the "Respect for court orders 2016 Act." And this name is not the only wave aspect of the bill. The just over nine pages statute includes terminology and many undefined contradictions. To sum up what makes the law so problematic, here are 5 exasperating aspects of encryption bill, down.
1.) Encryption bill compromises in demanding the impossible.
In Sec. 2 Direction Congress:
"[A] ll providers of communications services and products (including software) should protect the privacy of individuals States with the implementation of appropriate data security and always respect the rule of law and to comply with all legal requirements and court orders. "
This requirement falls completely on his face. There is no way that services and communications providers can protect the privacy of citizens while respecting the ridiculous regulations set forth in the encryption bill; the draft law makes encryption vulnerable citizens by default.
2). It would be an extreme abuse of power.
In Sec. 3 Requirement to provide data in an intelligible format on receipt of a court order:
"[A] covered entity receives a court order from a government for information or data must- (a) provide such information or data to such a government in an intelligible format; or (B) provide such technical assistance is necessary to obtain such information or data in a readable format or to achieve the purpose of the court order. "
This is a clear, more extreme variant of the Act All writs. It is draconian and energetic, demanding and communications services providers look on metadata government request. There is an alarming lack of checks and balances in the encryption bill as a whole. Although metadata should not hold in some categories (crimes resulting in death or serious injury, foreign intelligence, espionage, etc.), these categories, as much of the text are vague.
3.) It could be strong encryption death.
In Sec. 3 Requirement to provide data in an intelligible format on receipt of a court order:
"A covered entity receiving a court order under paragraph (1) (a) is only responsible for providing data in a readable format so that data were made unintelligible by a feature, product or service owned, controlled, created or provided by the entity concerned or by a third party on behalf of 'covered entity. "
This provision is a punch to the gut to all those in favor of strong encryption. Require unintelligible data intelligible creates huge question marks over the future of encryption throughout. The law would essentially outlaw its use because the encryption can not be truly end to end if it has a backdoor or preconceived vulnerabilities. In addition, the bill does not distinguish between what was encrypted and what has been deleted. Would really want to live in a world where you could never really get rid of anything?
4.) It is painfully technically illiterate.
In Sec. 3 Requirement to provide data in an intelligible format on receipt of a court order:
"Nothing in this Act may be construed to authorize an officer of the Government of require or prohibit any specific design or operating system to be adopted by a specified entity. "
This may seem like a good mood, but it contradicts the rest of the project encryption law. The bill together can really be interpreted as prohibiting a specific design or operating system because it implicitly prohibits the encryption end to end. So including this aspect is completely unnecessary in light of the rest of the bill, because all the other provisions include restrictions on specific designs and / or operating systems. The fact that it is included anyway highlights the technical illiteracy of those who wrote the draft law encryption.
5.) It could open the door to hackers, stalkers and other criminals.
In Sec. 3 Requirement to provide data in an intelligible format on receipt of a court order:
"A remote computing service provider or an electronic communications service to 12 the public that distributes licenses for products, services, applications or software or by a covered entity must ensure that such products, services, applications or software distributed through that person to be able to comply with paragraph (a) . "
This aspect of the bill favors beyond deciphering simple responsibility and communications services providers. It would impact widely applications, as applications available on a device such as an iPhone, would have to comply with the law as well. So not only the encryption on the weak devices by law, encryption vulnerabilities would be extended to all software used on these devices. Hacking, stalking, and other cyber crimes would probably run riot.
Due to these aspects, Bill has naturally been widely criticized and the opposition . Kevin Bankston, director of the Open Technology Institute at the New America Foundation, called it "easily the most ridiculous, dangerous, technically illiterate proposal" he had ever seen in nearly 20 years of work of the policy technology; Gizmodo called a nightmare It is quite clear that supporters of encryption bill either have no idea what are its implications, or they do not care Maybe.. both. Regardless, this bill is a threat to the privacy and security of all citizens, and it must be stopped. Meanwhile, you can use IPVanish the only service Top Tier VPN in the world, to protect your own privacy and security.
Need a IPVanish account? Sign up now!
We want you hear! What aspect of encryption bill did you find most disturbing?
0 Komentar