> The concern is that law enforcement can't decrypt things even if they have a warrant,
The concern is that law enforcement apparently can't understand that "Warrant-compatible encryption" is an oxymoron.
If encryption is a munition (if privacy is a weapon) then the 2nd Amendment is in play, eh?
(edit: WWII, Turing, Bombe, Enigma.)
Re:White House weighs encryption crackdown
by rubinelli on Friday June 28, 2019 @02:51PM
(#20307655)
Definitely, after all encryption is a crucial tool for citizens to protect themselves from oppressive governments, so it fits the spirit of the law even better than it fits its letter.
They should stop expecting all of their job to be easy as a Google search, get off their rears, and do real detective work. If it isn't worth real-world work, then it's probably not worth eroding citizen rights over.
Re:White House weighs encryption crackdown
by rhinoceraptor on Friday June 28, 2019 @02:34PM
(#20307463)
> "Warrant-compatible encryption" requires a warrant
It sure does, just like my front door requires a key :)
Re:White House weighs encryption crackdown
by vilhelm_s on Friday June 28, 2019 @05:00PM
(#20308747)
I'm not sure what point you are making, but the entire argument in favor of these laws is to make encryption work more like front doors. In order to open the door the police require a warrant, but once they have that there are no technical issues which make it hard to get to door open, they can just call a locksmith.
See https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/04/burr-feinstein-proposa... for the previous bill.