FED=Federal government. I should of said anyone in congress, the senate, the white house, and institutions in between.
It is one thing to have a rumor flying about without comment and another to have it flying about CNN, MSNBC and FOX, not to mention the attention that the EFF gave this story. I really expected someone in the government to deny rumors of such legislation. They are not saying that a bill was presented, they said that the white house plans to present 2 bills over the next year. You would think if this is not true, someone in the white house would have made a comment to deny these rumors considering the attention given by the media. IMO, this is a bit more then a simple rumor spreading around in the blog-o-sphere. Chris... On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 5:25 PM, Charles N Wyble <[email protected]> wrote: > On 09/29/2010 01:48 PM, Chris Penn wrote: > > I have seen discussions on liberal and Conservative news > channels/Sites, since this thread started, related to this purposed > encryption legislation and I have seen nothing from the FED denying > any of it. > > What is the FED? I'm not familiar with this acronym. Is this a shorthand > reference to the federal reserve? If so I don't see why they would be > commenting on legislation that isn't related to financial policy. > > They were talking about this on O'Reilly last night (best > entertainment of TV), and of course they loved the idea. Most people > do not seem to understand why this is a bad idea. > > Sure. The general pop never does. > > The idea, with respect to encryption, is that ISPs, and any other > communication company, will have to give their encryption keys to the > FED, if a judge signs off on it, in a more expedient way then is > currently possible. In theory this will make eavesdropping on > communications faster and more efficient. > > No... based on the NYT article, the proposed law (which again is not before > congress and is currently only speculation) requires the systems to be able > to spit out plain text and hand that over. It doesn't require turning over > the encryption keys. From > http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/27/us/27wiretap.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1 > > “No one should be promising their customers that they will thumb their nose > at a U.S. court order,” Ms. Caproni said. “They can promise strong > encryption. They just need to figure out how they can provide us plain > text.” > > > One example discussed on CNN and FOX was BlackBerry's RIM encryption. > Some of you may remember that the UAE (and Saudi Arabia) threaten to > ban blackberry services because they would not hand over this > information freely to the respective governments. > > That is true. Keep in mind that two systems exist. BES (used by enterprises > with Zimbra or Microsoft Exchange. Admin sets up unique encryption keys etc) > and BIS (used by carriers like t-mobile. Not sure of the nature of the > encryption). So to my knowledge the UAE would only be able to get into BIS > systems. This is trivially bypassed by deploying BES or using an IMAPS > connection. > > Without some denial from the FED or white house, I am starting to > think that this is not just FUD. > > All sorts of rumors fly about. Responding to every one would be very time > consuming. :) > > Let's be incredibly mindful of the facts in this situation and avoid jumping > to conclusions. I'm very disappointed in LWN and EFF for parroting a NYT > article that seems to be pure conjecture. No bill is before congress at this > time. To my knowledge no proposed bill text is out there. > > > > _______________________________________________ > LinuxUsers mailing list > [email protected] > http://socallinux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linuxusers > > -- "As we open our newspapers or watch our television screens, we seem to be continually assaulted by the fruits of Mankind's stupidity." -Roger Penrose _______________________________________________ LinuxUsers mailing list [email protected] http://socallinux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linuxusers
