News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Email privacy bill unanimously passes U.S. House.

Re:Email privacy bill unanimously passes U.S. House by cvwright on Wednesday April 27, 2016 @06:54PM (#11585260)
So this passed unanimously in the House, and is supported by more than 25% of Senators.

But it might not pass the senate because Grassley doesn't want to discuss it "during an election year"? WTF?!? Where's the controversy? This sounds more like an opportunity for a big bi-partisan win that everyone in both parties could brag about.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Email privacy bill unanimously passes U.S. House by lsiebert on Wednesday April 27, 2016 @07:01PM (#11585306)
According to https://morningconsult.com/2016/04/email-privacy-act-faces-s...

Grassley wants to give civil agencies like the FTC and SEC an exemption.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Email privacy bill unanimously passes U.S. House by cmdrfred on Wednesday April 27, 2016 @07:36PM (#11585489)
Ahh, that must be the real reason this was passed. Somebody doesn't like the SEC looking at their email.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Email privacy bill unanimously passes U.S. House by wildmusings on Wednesday April 27, 2016 @08:41PM (#11585825)
And why shouldn't the SEC need a warrant just like the FBI does?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Email privacy bill unanimously passes U.S. House by cmdrfred on Wednesday April 27, 2016 @08:48PM (#11585848)
Because the SEC regulates publicly traded companies. If you wish to keep your email private simply don't go public.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Email privacy bill unanimously passes U.S. House by JumpCrisscross on Wednesday April 27, 2016 @09:00PM (#11585895)
> the SEC regulates publicly traded companies

Nope. The SEC regulates all securities issued by American companies or to American investors. Tesla and SpaceX are both SEC regulated.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Email privacy bill unanimously passes U.S. House by Retric on Wednesday April 27, 2016 @10:00PM (#11586127)
IMO, there is not much difference in regulating public stock and public debt. If SpaceX wants to borrow from bank of America fine, but if they want to issue trade-able bonds and borrow from John Q Public that's a separate thing.

PS: Arguably this is the same reason banks are regulated.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Email privacy bill unanimously passes U.S. House by cvwright on Wednesday April 27, 2016 @08:31PM (#11585776)
Leave it to HN to find the cloud in every silver lining. :)

That said, perhaps you have a point...

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Email privacy bill unanimously passes U.S. House by deadowl on Wednesday April 27, 2016 @09:15PM (#11585955)
With the ACLU and EFF backing, I'm not finding any significant negatives. On the other hand, this bill is so overdue that it leaves me wondering.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Email privacy bill unanimously passes U.S. House by meddlepal on Wednesday April 27, 2016 @08:20PM (#11585731)
It's pathetic but I wouldn't put it past our elected officials to do this.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Email privacy bill unanimously passes U.S. House by studentrob on Wednesday April 27, 2016 @09:58PM (#11586118)
Obama, Sanders and Clinton didn't want to discuss encryption around election year either. They knew their constituents are divided on it and that might give Republicans a stronger position.

I believe that's why Congress wouldn't give the FBI a law to mandate that companies decrypt data. And, it sort of explains why Sanders and Clinton both said they sought "middle ground" regarding encryption and then never spoke about it again

If you've already made up your mind to do something that pisses off a lot of your constituents or your party's constituents, you should avoid discussing it during an election year. It's too bad, since more debate would've been more educational for everyone, but it is what it is. Politicians can choose what they want to talk about just like we can.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Email privacy bill unanimously passes U.S. House by rhizome on Wednesday April 27, 2016 @10:04PM (#11586136)
that's why Congress wouldn't give the FBI a law to mandate that companies decrypt data

When? Feinstein-Burr is still in play.

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/technology/277467-enc...

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Email privacy bill unanimously passes U.S. House by studentrob on Wednesday April 27, 2016 @10:11PM (#11586161)
Its release was delayed. It was meant to come out last year. It didn't get released until after the Democratic debates, and even now it's only in draft form.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Email privacy bill unanimously passes U.S. House by rhizome on Wednesday April 27, 2016 @10:48PM (#11586286)
I still wouldn't say, "wouldn't give."
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Email privacy bill unanimously passes U.S. House by studentrob on Wednesday April 27, 2016 @11:08PM (#11586334)
Cool. I'm not you. "Wouldn't give" and "did not pass last year" are equivalent to me. Everyone understands Congress must vote on ideas periodically and what I wrote is shorthand for that.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Email privacy bill unanimously passes U.S. House by rhizome on Thursday April 28, 2016 @11:06PM (#11593531)
You're implying that there has been a vote on F-B at some point so far.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Email privacy bill unanimously passes U.S. House by studentrob on Thursday April 28, 2016 @11:29PM (#11593601)
Nope, I'm not. Congressmen discuss bills with each other before releasing. They usually won't come out with something unless there's some support. Obama's been asking for this legislation since Cyrus Vance's whitepaper in November 2015 [1]

For further play-by-play you can skim the white house daily briefings for references to encryption and/or feinstein over the last few months [2].

[1] https://cyber.law.harvard.edu/pubrelease/dont-panic/DA_Repor...

[2] https://encrypted.google.com/search?safe=off&q=encryption+fe...

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Email privacy bill unanimously passes U.S. House by rhizome on Saturday April 30, 2016 @03:02PM (#11603042)
If all of this inside-baseball is what's underpinning your point, then "wouldn't give" is indeed doing a lot of work in your original statement.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Email privacy bill unanimously passes U.S. House by studentrob on Saturday April 30, 2016 @08:00PM (#11604218)
Oh brother. It was shorthand. Sorry if you didn't get my meaning at first but I think you get my point now.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Email privacy bill unanimously passes U.S. House by Analemma_ on Wednesday April 27, 2016 @08:10PM (#11585683)
Have you seen the Senate recently? Grassley is a Republican, and the current MO of the Republican Senate is to do absolutely nothing, no matter how uncontroversial, until the Evil Tyrant Obama is finally defeated.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Email privacy bill unanimously passes U.S. House by cvwright on Wednesday April 27, 2016 @08:28PM (#11585766)
Sigh.. I was kind of hoping we were past all that. Notice that, in the House, more Republicans than Democrats voted for this.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Email privacy bill unanimously passes U.S. House by loeg on Wednesday April 27, 2016 @09:25PM (#11585991)
It was unanimous—the absolute number of R and D votes just reflects the political demographics of the House.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Email privacy bill unanimously passes U.S. House by themartorana on Wednesday April 27, 2016 @08:36PM (#11585808)
Past it? How's Garland's SCOTUS confirmation going?
[ Parent | on HN ]