Navigation
Society
Stanford Law School
Riana Pfefferkorn
Washington Post
the Department of Justice
DOJ
Apple
FBI
Congress
WhatsApp
Facebook
Capitol Hill’s
Big Tech
the U.S. Congress
Office of Information Security
John Demers
AAG Demers
Graham
Hill
Michael Pollan
Australian
German
No matching tags
No matching tags
Australia
the United Kingdom
the United States
UK
U.S.
Germany
America
No matching tags
I explained last month that the techlash has now gained enough momentum that law enforcement may have a fighting chance of getting its anti-encryption wish, under the guise of protecting children, in the form of a terrible bill called the EARN IT Act. That bill doesn’t look much like Australia’s Assistance and Access Act or the UK’s IP Act -- in fact it doesn’t mention the word “encryption” at all -- but right now it’s the lead contender for the DOJ to get an “encryption-limiting law” passed in the U.S. Exploiting the techlash is a strategy I’ve been calling law enforcement out for since October 2017. Even Senator Graham, the author of the EARN IT Act bill, admitted in that very same article that this doesn’t make any sense: “When asked whether he saw any tension between Capitol Hill’s ongoing effort to pass privacy legislation and its burgeoning push to mandate encryption backdoors,” Graham admitted he saw “‘a lot.’” So, if even Senator Graham can see through the DOJ’s ploy to elicit what I’m calling transitive rage, why is it working? Mostly kids.” It is likewise unsurprising yet disappointing that DOJ views Australia’s stupid law as clearing the way to make anti-encryption legislation palatable to the U.S. Congress. Of the DOJ officials currently rejoicing over the opening Australia and the UK have given them to finally shove anti-encryption legislation through Congress, how many have ever said to their children, “And if all your friends jumped off a bridge, would you jump too?” The DOJ wants the U.S. to take a blinkered view of how governments should handle the topic of encryption.
As said here by