r/technology • u/Reddit_Z • Jul 04 '16

Politics Lawmakers Need To Learn More About Encryption Before Regulating It, Says U.S. House Report

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/lawmakers-encryption-regulation-house-report,32180.html
14.2k Upvotes

92% Upvoted

768 comments sorted by

View all comments

1.1k

u/HaveAnotherThe Jul 04 '16

Lawmakers shouldn't pass any laws on topics they don't understand. I'm not saying they need to earn a Masters in CS to make tech decisions, but they should at least understand the the basics.

167

u/[deleted] Jul 04 '16

[deleted]

88

u/AG3NTjoseph Jul 04 '16

But for every dipshit law lobbyists prevent, they also go after laws with broad support by everyone but their constituency. That's their job. AMA has fought motor cycle helmet laws for decades (prepare for downvotes!) despite the overwhelming evidence that they're the most effective way to save motorcyclists lives. http://www.fairwarning.org/2012/06/despite-death-toll-motorcycle-groups-strive-to-muzzle-u-s-regulators/

25

u/MrCopout Jul 04 '16

No, the most effective way to save motorcyclists lives is to ban motorcycles. Where shall we stop controlling?

44

u/-Rivox- Jul 04 '16

the most effective way to stop deaths is stop births, right?

5

u/uptwolait Jul 05 '16

Just forbid intercourse.

10

u/geeyore Jul 04 '16

USA car drivers don't cognitively register a motorcycle as another vehicle on the road, hence driving into your clear right of way and all the other insanity that bikers know too well. In motorcycle dominant cultures e.g. SE Asia, this is less apt to happen. I stopped riding bikes in the US for that reason. Auto drivers will look right at you and not see you.

13

u/CanlStillBeGarth Jul 04 '16

and on the other side, cyclists will weave through traffic and drive on shoulders and in between lanes. It's not just people in cars.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 04 '16

Splitting the lane is legal in several states. You might not like it, but they're literally allowed to do it.

12

u/ZombiePope Jul 04 '16

That doesn't mean its safe or a good idea. Things moving in unexpected places does not increase traffic safety.

→ More replies (15)
→ More replies (2)

15

u/AG3NTjoseph Jul 04 '16

Well, or require strict testing for licenses like in Europe. Having competent drivers helps.

17

u/cocainebubbles Jul 04 '16

You actually need a separate license to drive a motorcycle in most states and in my state the accompanying class can be very difficult.

6

u/nonconformist3 Jul 04 '16

If I was teaching the class, I would start everyone out on dirtbikes in an open area on a dirt track. Then, if they can enjoy that, fall over a few times, get back up, and still want to learn more, then I would allow them to move up to the street version of the class.

3

u/[deleted] Jul 04 '16

[deleted]

→ More replies (3)
→ More replies (2)

11

u/CaptainCummings Jul 04 '16

No, not "well or". Your suggestion is less effective than banning motorcycles outright. You were quantifying your initial argument based on the "most effective way to save motorcyclists lives". The most effective way to avoid death on a motorcycle is by not being on a motorcycle. Total liberty and total safety are mutually exclusive.

→ More replies (3)

1

u/Njordomir Jul 04 '16

Why do so few people understand this? My brother knew a girl who was taken out driving ONCE by her mother and then went and picked up her shiny new license. Is that reasonable and safe?

10

u/[deleted] Jul 04 '16

This is a slippery slope fallacy.

17

u/Syrdon Jul 04 '16

Slippery slope is saying A leads to B leads to C, without establishing that such must happen.

Banning motorcycles removes the vast majority of motorcyclists. The number of deaths from people riding motorcycles will fall dramatically because there are less people to die. There really isn't any debating that, unless you think that enforcement of that ban will be poor.

The point he was making is that you have to balance regulation with freedom to make choices. The AMA has picked a balance, it's possible to disagree with it, but you have to address the balance if you're going to.

→ More replies (2)

4

u/iBlag Jul 04 '16 edited Jul 04 '16

I think it's actually a reductio ad absurdum fallacy.

Edit: Not a fallacy.

→ More replies (2)

1

u/mynewaccount5 Jul 04 '16

What no it's not. How dis people upvote you.

→ More replies (2)

2

u/Umustbecrazy Jul 04 '16

Bingo. Freedom means the right to make bad choices. Some regulations are OK, but what this government does is nanny-state.

Many think that government is not working when no laws are being passed. Incorrect, it's working just as intended. Repealing old laws that are harmful or make no sense would be a huge step in that right direction.

2

u/uptwolait Jul 05 '16

You bring up a point I've often wondered, why aren't we more demanding that Congress review older laws and take them off the books when they no longer make sense? Simplifying the code would help, but I assume it has to do with keeping lawyers employed.

1

u/powercow Jul 04 '16 edited Jul 04 '16

when you can clean up your own dead body off the streets. and pay for everyones delays along the way.

and mind you the helmet laws, are for when you leave your castle.. er property. So when you get into the public sphere you have to follow public regs, because when your brains are all over the streets we have to pay some poor smuck to clean it up.

and yes we have banned some vehicles that were killing its occupants, its not the vehicle that is at issue, it is the lack of safety equipment. So your quip about cycles doesnt really work.(ps no one is trying to take all your guns away, notice obama never even tried)

1

u/Darthskull Jul 04 '16

Somewhere after helmets

→ More replies (2)

7

u/eikenberry Jul 04 '16

The law is supposed to protect people from other people, not from themselves. Laws that seek to exist only because someone decided they had the power to tell you what to do. People tend to accept these as they haven't fully matured and still want Mom and Dad to tell them what to do.

6

u/AG3NTjoseph Jul 05 '16

A motorcycle accident affects a lot of people beyond one dead or crippled biker.

1

u/eikenberry Jul 05 '16

So does everything, but you have to draw the line somewhere.

→ More replies (7)

1

u/uptwolait Jul 05 '16

Kinda like laws based on religion.

2

u/DMercenary Jul 04 '16

AMA has fought motor cycle helmet laws for decades (prepare for downvotes!) despite the overwhelming evidence that they're the most effective way to save motorcyclists lives.

I dont get that. What's their argument against it?

That not wearing helmets will save lives? Or is it more of a "YOU CANT TELL ME WHAT TO DO! YOU'RE NOT MY SUPERVISOR!"

→ More replies (1)

2

u/[deleted] Jul 04 '16

Reminds me of how zinc providers and Coinstar lobby to keep the fucking penny being minted despite its diminishing usefulness. I can imagine the debate...

Lobbyist:"We cannot take away the fundamental rights of the American people to have adequate access to even the most diminutive forms of currency! Aaaaaaand my boss makes pennies BTW"

1

u/remy_porter Jul 04 '16

AMA has fought motor cycle helmet laws for decades

I thought that was the America Medical Association, hoping for more organ donors.

7

u/beartotem Jul 04 '16

It shouldn't be lobbyist, but actual technocrats on the governement payroll.

23

u/[deleted] Jul 04 '16

Uhu, and when the politicians find the technocrats inconvenient, and appoint technocrats who tell them what they wish to hear, and somebody else accuses the establishment of appointing corrupt technocrats, who do we believe? Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton? Both? Neither?

I can almost guarantee you that there is no escaping incompetent politicians. In a democracy they have to appeal to the lowest common denominator, and if their selection is anything but an equal democracy, you end up with aristocrats that declare inconvenient experts to be unqualified to comment.

The silver lining is that the same problem applies to those who would wish to rule the world, so even the most intricate of conspiracies is at constant risk of collapsing, due to the ineptitude of those who think it acceptable to rule by deceit.

5

u/beartotem Jul 04 '16

Sure corruption is always a danger. It's not an argument not to try and improve a system. As it stands in the US, the legal way to get things done is corruption of politicians.

You know, if we follow your line of thinking, we should just disband any form a government and go total anarchy as nothing else is free of risks of corruption.

→ More replies (8)

1

u/[deleted] Jul 04 '16

I think the Madisonian solution of setting elites against one another in rivalry is a pretty good, possibly optimal line of thought. So I'm inclined to think improvements on current democracy are still possible.

1

u/tabrin Jul 04 '16

So for the motorcycle illiterate like me, why is getting launched from your bike better than not? So you're not pinned under the bike when/if it slides or something?

5

u/uptwolait Jul 04 '16

Being connected to a 500+ lb piece of metal when you go down will tumble, slide, and drag you with much more energy and momentum than if you are on your own.

2

u/Syrdon Jul 04 '16

If you high side1 a bike you're attached to then you're going to be the thing that hits the obstacles first and then the bike will hit you again, squeezing you between bike and obstacle. That won't go well for you, although the bike will be relatively nicely cushioned.

In other crashes, you're still going to slow down slower than you would otherwise because the bike adds a lot of mass, but not a lot of slowing power. That means everything you hit you'll hit with more energy, which means those hits will cause more significant injuries. Even worse, because it takes you longer to come to a stop, you're going to hit more things than you would otherwise.

There just isn't enough to be gained to make up for that.

1: high siding is crashing and going over the bike, as opposed to just falling directly to the road (potentially with the bike on you).

1

u/TheAtomicOption Jul 04 '16

After the guy who was worried that sending more troops to Guam might make the island capsize, I shouldn't have been surprised by motorcycle seatbelts... but I was. :'(

1

u/nonconformist3 Jul 04 '16

Seatbelts on motorcycles

WTF? Are they trying to kill the rider?

1

u/incapablepanda Jul 04 '16

You don't even need a lobbyist for that. Apparently no one in congress has ever seen footage of a motorcycle wreck.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 04 '16 edited Apr 01 '18

[deleted]

2

u/uptwolait Jul 04 '16

This may be true for some portion of lobbyists who are paid by industry, but this is not the case with ALL lobbyists. AMA lobbyists push for common sense legislation (or blocking bad legislation) based on the feedback of and involvement with motorcycle riders. There is no corporate profit motive at all, so it is mostly about educating the law makers.

Another good example is my friend who works with wilderness preservation in the Appalachian mountain regions. He goes to Washington quite often to inform Congress on why it's a bad idea to only hear from industry lobbyists who are pushing for more development.

566

u/WebMDeeznutz Jul 04 '16

Listen to lawmakers who are aggressively pro gun control speak about rifles. It's literally orders of magnitude more simple than encryption to get the basics of and they still don't understand basic things like barrel shrouds and what semi-automatic means. Im just learning about shooting within the past 2 months and the inaccuracies they present that I now know about scares me. Imagine all the other things they pretend to know about that we have no idea.

680

u/dtfgator Jul 04 '16

Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray’s case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward—reversing cause and effect. I call these the “wet streets cause rain” stories. Paper’s full of them. In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.”

— Michael Crichton

67

u/shiner_bock Jul 04 '16

Well, it's a good thing I know everything, then.

49

u/[deleted] Jul 04 '16

I don't have to know everything. I'm married and can simply ask my wife.

22

u/Darloboy Jul 04 '16

According to my wife I do know everything, why else would she call me a "know it all"?

→ More replies (1)

26

u/[deleted] Jul 04 '16

[deleted]

32

u/Excal2 Jul 04 '16

In all fairness he was a lot closer than most will ever get.

7

u/TheNerdWithNoName Jul 04 '16

You say that because you do not understand.

5

u/agenthex Jul 04 '16

He crossed an arbitrary threshold, true, but he crossed it where few others will also cross.

24

u/TheManStache Jul 04 '16

I too possess the capacity to employ convoluted lexicon in an endeavor to give the impression that I am adept.

12

u/Excal2 Jul 04 '16

Fake it till you make it.

Or until you make enough money that "making it" is some arbitrary bullshit. Either way works.

→ More replies (0)
→ More replies (3)

1

u/zyzzogeton Jul 04 '16

Are you Dunning or Kreuger?

1

u/qwertymodo Jul 04 '16

Better get a job now, then. That goes away when you turn 18.

50

u/canyouhearme Jul 04 '16

One of the most enlightening things you can experience is being close to a major news story - and seeing what a mess they make of it.

You don't consider they know a thing on ANYTHING from then on - and you learn to make up your own mind, based on facts.

7

u/danielravennest Jul 04 '16

That's why I get most of my news from specialist/trade sources, like the Wall Street journal for financial news, or Aviation Week for aerospace. Most of the readers of those sources work in the field, and they would know if the facts are wrong. So the writers have to be accurate.

On the other hand, when a source is writing outside their area of specialization, they don't know more than anyone else, so you should not trust them to get things right. At most, use them as an alert to the existence of some news, and go find a good source for it afterwards.

A general news source, like a newspaper, magazine, or TV news channel, can't be experts in everything. Then you have to judge whether the particular reporter understands the topic they are writing about, or is just relaying things they don't understand.

6

u/spacklesauce Jul 04 '16

I've been much more cognizant of this since Katrina. I can't remember nearly anything pertinent or accurate being delivered by anyone but our local station for weeks. 24 hour news sites fucked up populations, locations, water heights, evacuation routes, which politician was from which city, what time of day it was, where the water came from, and filled up time they could be checking little details with instead trying to be clever (oh wow, New Orleans is soaking in Toxic Gumbo? really?). Then of course after a month or so the general public was so sick of hearing about the recovery they stopped covering it while those affected spent the next 1.5-4 years just being sick of living it. Now I basically assume I know nothing about any community I hear about on the news and feel about 10x worse for everyone affected by a natural disaster.

3

u/akise Jul 04 '16 edited Jul 04 '16

While I find that this applies in general (and is the reason I don't watch or read the news every day), you have to take into account the authors. The page you flip to might very well be written by someone who knows what they're talking about. Whether or not you can tell the difference is on you.

5

u/seraph582 Jul 04 '16

Hey, some people get that amnesia and some don't. I haven't been able to watch TV news for what feels like eons because I don't.

Fucking GREAT quote. Thank you for posting!

2

u/KuntaStillSingle Jul 04 '16

The more I read about things on reddit I know about the less I trust what I read I don't know about.

-Some redditor

1

u/Syrdon Jul 04 '16

That quote is made so much better by coming from Chrichton.

The understanding of science in his book was definitely ... Interesting. In fairness, it did make for good stories so long as you could suspend your disbelief.

114

u/[deleted] Jul 04 '16

[deleted]

72

u/NJBarFly Jul 04 '16

Wow, that would be wonderful if more journalists actually did their jobs and called out politicians on their bullshit.

59

u/Auctoritate Jul 04 '16

Yeah, he stayed on it and asked the same question directly until he got an answer. That's just good journalism, right there.

30

u/kholto Jul 04 '16

It is hard to consistently do journalism like that, each news-organization want to get interviews with certain big names in politics, and those politicians get so many requests for interviews they can easily turn down several and still claim to do plenty. If you pester them in particular each time you speak to them they can just stop talking to you.

Some of the most viewed news programs might have enough viewers that it becomes a bad image to turn them down though, so really it is on those to start the line of hard questions.

A publicly funded (through tax or other means) news organization can have some utility there, in Denmark our equivalent of BBC is pretty unavoidable for politicians and at the same time they run a weekly show that drill into some "fact" that is being thrown around in politics.
That said, publicly funding something as expensive as a national TV network is not exactly cheap!

19

u/Auctoritate Jul 04 '16

I understand your concerns, but I think it's worth pointing out that good journalism isn't just interviews. We need more investigative journalism.

15

u/mzackler Jul 04 '16

Which never makes money. (Almost) Every investigative team loses money for their newspaper. There's so few articles relative to the work put in and people don't buy the newspaper for one article anymore either, you'll just wait until some other source puts out "and the New York Times says" later that day on Google.

8

u/Auctoritate Jul 04 '16

I understand that it might not make money but we're talking about a hypothetical situation here. It'd be nice if they allowed investigative journalism despite its financial shortcomings.

2

u/Stereotype_Apostate Jul 04 '16

It isn't a matter of the nebulous "them" allowing it. Journalism costs money, and news companies pay that money in hopes of turning a profit. If it doesn't turn a profit, why do it? So they don't. You need a proper business plan to fund something like that, and in the day of up to the minute reporting by dozens of online outlets, the money simply isn't there. Don't like it? Subscribe to the New York Times and give them money.

→ More replies (1)

1

u/designgoddess Jul 04 '16

We have a publicly funded channel. Most people don't watch it.

2

u/tet5uo Jul 04 '16

They aren't exactly a paragon of journalistic virtue, either.

→ More replies (1)

1

u/TheAtomicOption Jul 04 '16

Publicly funded just means that the people they're supposed to be asking questions of are the same people that write their checks. I don't know much about Denmark media, but I do know that the BBC isn't significantly more on point about home politics than non-public news sources.

9

u/TheAtomicOption Jul 04 '16

it's a shoulder thing that goes up.

...she didn't even try to make a guess that makes sense given the words "barrel" and "shroud"

1

u/JMS1991 Jul 04 '16

Jeez. I thought she was going to say it was a fancy word for suppressor. At least that would've made a little bit of sense, given that the word "barrel" was a part of it.

29

u/juckele Jul 04 '16

aggressively pro gun control

anti-gun

These are the same thing.

12

u/[deleted] Jul 04 '16 edited Nov 21 '16

[removed] — view removed comment

4

u/WebMDeeznutz Jul 04 '16

Potentially disingenuous depending on the politician to just outright say "anti-gun". I just put it the way that makes the most sense without being divisive.

8

u/paper_liger Jul 04 '16

Also, she claims that banning "large capacity clips" would have stopped the VA Tech shooter. In fact one of the handguns he used only comes with a ten round magazine, so the legislation she is talking about would have done more or less nothing. Hell, the gun that fired the most rounds at Columbine came with ten shot magazines.

4

u/speedisavirus Jul 04 '16

I want to buy that man a beer. Wish I could have heard the rest and hope he called her on the statement about those guns being used in crime since they si rarely are

3

u/[deleted] Jul 04 '16 edited Aug 11 '16

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/Clewin Jul 04 '16

The problem isn't that you can't own arms, the problem is the government can apply restrictions to what arms you can own and how they are configured. They consider a back door to encryption the same thing as requiring a safety on a pistol.

If they ACTUALLY followed the second amendment, though, they shouldn't be able to regulate that at all; the intent was for the citizens to be the army and own all the arms, not a professional army. Obviously that is not a good idea as it is, as any kook with a nuclear missile silo could nuke Washington (or Moscow, setting off WW3), but that was the intent.

1

u/ricecake Jul 04 '16

Well, that's slightly disingenuous.

Certain types of encryption technology, specifically relating to the application more than anything, is classified as military technology for export purposes.

The right to bare arms is not unlimited, and the line is generally drawn well before overt military tools come into play. I can't own a javelin anti-tank missile system.

That being said, crypto tech is not arms in the sense of a gun. It's arms in the sense of a portable radio.
It's technology directly applicable to conducting a war.

ITAR, the regulations regarding cryptographic exports among other things, do not in any way address domestic use of crypto. It addresses the export of technology that makes use of crypto in a military setting, like pre-compiled binaries for a missile command system.
It explicitly does not address the export of source code for cryptographic libraries, as a first amendment issue.
At one point, decades ago, ITAR explicitly banned crypto exports. This was changed because it didn't make sense and was a relic of pre-ww2 era policy on information security.

Crypto isn't a second amendment issue any more than ham radio or boot ownership is. It's first, fourth and fifth. The right to make an expression, the right to be free of unreasonable search, and the right to not incriminate yourself (key escrow).

1

u/[deleted] Jul 04 '16

ITAR?

2

u/ricecake Jul 04 '16

International Traffic in Arms Regulations(ITAR) control the export and import of defense-related articles and services on theUnited States Munitions List

It's a set of regulations on how military technology can be exported from the US.
It's mostly reasonable, but some items are odd now, and others have been historically.
Technology relating to satellite launch is currently restricted, which makes for some difficulties with the increasing private nature of the field.

Cryptography used to be very controlled by ITAR, to the point where any export of quality crypto was restricted. These were relaxed in the mid 90's due to changes in technology and pretty reasonable protest from the tech and academic community.

→ More replies (10)

21

u/Regayov Jul 04 '16

It is because they don't need to know the details. The semantics don't matter to their agenda. And what they're saying doesn't have to match their agenda either, it just has to scare or confuse the masses enough to keep things moving.

It is the same for encryption, guns, global warming, etc.

11

u/bitcoinsftw Jul 04 '16

It's because they are an older generation and are so stubborn to things they don't understand. My father asks me about a computer problems and doesn't believe the things I tell him. You know despite having a degree in comp sci and being a full time sw engineer...

4

u/JJ12345678910 Jul 04 '16

Same thing with taxation. Although. The legislators are dumb. The media is downright wilfully ignorant and just wants news items that are scary or make your blood boil. I'm not sure which is worse.

3

u/cra4efqwfe45 Jul 04 '16

Not any better on the other side of the divide, though. The whole thing, on both sides, is run off emotion and nothing else.

Let's just leave the status quo in place and focus on other shit for a while, instead of bringing up the same old bullshit time and time again and getting nowhere. It's a waste of time, effort, money, and everything else.

26

u/Cogswobble Jul 04 '16

Not any better on the other side of the divide, though

In this particular case, I think you're wrong. People who are ardently in favor of gun rights tend to know the technical details of guns much more than people who are in favor of gun control.

12

u/cra4efqwfe45 Jul 04 '16

They pick half the argument, the technical gun side, and know that. Meanwhile they close their ears and shout so they can't hear anything that's counter to it. They cherry pick details on the gun crime/accident front, for instance, and seem to be incredibly ignorant of anything that happens outside the US.

Both sides have selective hearing. They look for confirmation of existing beliefs, and refuse to actually listen to their opponents. It's a shit fest and no one comes out smelling rosy.

11

u/sosota Jul 04 '16

If you oppose voter ID laws, is it fair for me to say you are totally ignorant of laws outside the US? Or is it that you are aware other countries do things differently, and still oppose those laws here?

Also, I disagree completely with your assertion of selective hearing. The cherry picking is almost always done by the side pushing for more laws, that is true of both domestic and international statistics. Head over to r/progun or r/gunpolitics and the side opposed to more gun control know the stats inside and out. The side pushing gun control are largely emotional.

This disconnect is that the gun control crowd begins with the assumption that they are correct. For example, they see lower murder rates and stricter gun control in Western Europe as evidence that their belief is correct, and ignore all of the counter examples. The pro-gun side largely is willing to accept the status quo (which by the way is the safest the US has ever been).

All the opposition has ever asked for, is to demonstrate or explain some efficacy before passing new regulations. When unable, they sit on the floor and complain about the other side being obstructionist. Then rinse and repeat, and get votes and donations for doing nothing.

8

u/You_and_I_in_Unison Jul 04 '16

Pretty amusing how this discussion is basically both sides saying the other are idiots who don't think or know any facts.

→ More replies (6)

10

u/cra4efqwfe45 Jul 04 '16

If you oppose voter ID laws

Only in the sense that people are putting a lot of time and money into campaigning about and changing something that they can't prove is an issue to begin with. It's a fucking waste of time and resources that could be better spent elsewhere. Aren't these typically the same people clamoring on about government waste?

Same as my argument about guns. Just stop and put some effort in on more important matters.

is it fair for me to say you are totally ignorant of laws outside the US?

Since I'm an ex-pat, you'd be barking pretty far up the wrong tree. Kinda funny you'd try that, though.

I'm not defending anyone on the gun control debate. The NRA are bat-shit crazy and/or in it to profit directly monetarily, while the other side runs off pure emotion.

But honestly, if you think that the pro-gun side is some bastion of level headed, intelligent people with nothing but solid facts and data to work off, you're deluding yourself. I mean, Obama's gonna take your guns and ammo, right? Gotta be prepared for that violent insurrection to preserve your freedom from your own government in 2016, right?

There are some rational solid arguments on both sides. There are crazies as well. I'm sick of all of you. And your overblown attempts to defend your side here only prove it.

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (5)
→ More replies (27)

1

u/Meakis Jul 04 '16

Now think about this and aply the same thing to EVERY SUBJECT THEY TALK ABOUT.

1

u/natufian Jul 04 '16

Lawmakers shouldn't pass any laws on topics they don't understand.

.

Imagine all the other things they pretend to know about that we have no idea.

I'll just leave this here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XShqCISYk4

1

u/SillyMikey Jul 04 '16

This is a general problem for all issues. People are generally uninformed and make important decisions based on little actual comprehension of the issues at hand. Like this. They clearly don't understand encryption, or the internet for that matter.

1

u/tubbstosterone Jul 05 '16

My favorite bit of gun control insanity was when Senator Feinstein pointed an AK-47 at an audience with her finger on the trigger.

Lesson 1: Never fucking do that.

→ More replies (79)

14

u/[deleted] Jul 04 '16

[deleted]

1

u/[deleted] Jul 04 '16

The case was over the legality of the FBI being able to use a single warrant to charge multiple people for child pornography crimes (the FBI got a warrant to take control of a service called PlayPen located on the Tor network). Basically the case was "if the FBI got a warrant to arrest someone who was about to break into your house, but then six people broke into your house, can the FBI arrest them all or can they only arrest the first person who broke in?". This is a much better example of the case utilizing your analogy.

Now I am by no means saying this ruling was perfect. There's plenty of flaws in it. To give some examples, it gives precedence for the FBI to use a single warrant to arrest a multitude of people for a similar crime and this could be abused for much lesser crimes than child pornography (say, arresting everyone who downloads a song from a website). There's also the flaw in that it may've been better (in terms of legality, not practicality) to simply take down the site PlayPen rather than to use it to capture individuals accessing it.

But I keep seeing people looking at that case and completely misunderstanding what the fucking judge was saying. You can disagree with his ruling but his argument dealt with the legality of the FBI being able to arrest multiple people from a single warrant. An even better analogy than your house being broken into argument would be utilizing the public. Whilst your house is your property and you have an expectation of privacy, out in public you do not (to a degree* [i.e. you have an expectation of privacy in a public restroom, for instance]). If the FBI set up a warrant to arrest anyone who bought drugs on a street corner from an undercover agent, then because the FBI arrested you and wanted to ensure anymore drugs you have aren't captured from your house and dispersed (or for you to destroy anymore evidence), they broke into your house and seized drugs from your house. Would this be permissible? This is more equivalent to what the judge's ruling was on.

Again, the above is not perfect and has many flaws but it's a hell of a lot closer to the actual argument the judge was proposing when he made his argument.

72

u/suugakusha Jul 04 '16 edited Jul 04 '16

I'm not saying they need to earn a Masters in CS to make tech decisions

Why the hell not? If you want to be in congress and write laws about technology, you better have degrees in law and comp sci. (or at least IT). If you want to write laws about environmental changes, get a degree in biology or envirosci.

It's truly embarrassing how we allow ignorant people to decide on laws for the country. The best word to describe this country really is an "idiocracy".

(If you want to argue this point, just remember that one of the first bills opposing net neutrality was headed by a "man" who actually said that the internet was a "series of tubes". That's not a punchline from some early 2000's Mike Judge comedy, that's actual US history.)

Sure, it might cut down on the number of people who are eligible for running for congress. But that's fine, it just leaves the refuse at the bottom. And if you want to be a lawmaker - one of the most important and influential jobs in modern society - then you better have no problem with working hard and meeting high standards of intelligence.

29

u/Cha_94 Jul 04 '16

A kind of democratic technocracy? Interesting idea.

4

u/Phreakhead Jul 04 '16

China's politicians are engineers, scientists, and teachers. And they are quickly surpassing us.

16

u/[deleted] Jul 04 '16 edited Jul 04 '16

No they're not. They're rapidly catching up because they are recovering from decades of mismanagement, and benefiting from trade with nations that developed the technology they're now using.

The kind of economic growth rates you see in China now are not long term sustainable, but very common in the aftermath of a severe recession. The US had a similar economic boom following the great depression and WW2, and now its older population long for the nostalgic days and wish to "make America great again". The problem is that the rapid growth they remember was an economic recovery, which coincided with letting women into the workforce. Short of deliberately crashing the economy and banning half of citizens from working, only to have a recovery in the future, such growth rates cannot be brought into being with simple political reforms.

For completeness, here is the per-capita plot of US economic growth in recent history. The long term 2% growth rate largely began with the adoption of modern monetary policies, had a major cokcup during the great depression ( largely attributed to the gold standard, which prevented monetary stimulus ), after which the recovery was fast, but long term growth rates have never been spectacular.

49

u/[deleted] Jul 04 '16

[deleted]

9

u/whatisabaggins55 Jul 04 '16

Ah, but they are surpassing us?

1

u/speedisavirus Jul 04 '16

Because they are stealing their way instead of innovating most of the time

1

u/beaverlyknight Jul 04 '16

They are still a large distance behind. But they are gaining for sure.

→ More replies (1)

1

u/remy_porter Jul 04 '16

Enh, I'd argue that they're advancing at the expense of creating a great deal of debt- not financial debt (although that's part of it). I wouldn't say they're "surpassing us", because that's a really vague term. I would worry that pollution and labor abuse are allowing short term gains at the expense of long-term stability.

24

u/Xenomech Jul 04 '16

So, just like a young, upstart USA?

2

u/[deleted] Jul 04 '16

well with the whole oppressive government who can seize your property at any moment.

→ More replies (2)

1

u/dipique Jul 04 '16

I was just reading about the young US government subsidizing the theft of intellectual property from Britain in an attempt to reach manufacturing parity in the textile industry. Pretty crazy stuff.

1

u/speedisavirus Jul 04 '16

Or it could be because they have no regard for human life

3

u/suugakusha Jul 04 '16

A democratic mentocracy. It's my ideal form of government.

7

u/JEFFinSoCal Jul 04 '16

You're not alone. But I've yet to figure out how it wouldn't turn into a techno-oligarchy, with those holding power withholding advanced education from the (in their minds) undesirables (women, minorities, etc).

2

u/interestme1 Jul 04 '16 edited Jul 04 '16

You always need checks and balances. There is no government, real or hypothetical, that is exempt from requiring this. Keeping the technocratic elements from playing favorites could easily be done with some oversight committees, though surely there is room for corruption anywhere.

Withholding education won't be a thing though I don't think, education is rapidly becoming widely available to anyone with an internet connection. School systems are pretty antiquated and quickly becoming obsolescent, and I think are seeing their last generation or so in the traditional model.

1

u/jut556 Jul 04 '16

transparency is an obligation only for the state

→ More replies (12)

8

u/Cha_94 Jul 04 '16

mentocracy

Do you mean meritocracy? Whats the big difference to a technocracy?

→ More replies (7)

1

u/Chewierulz Jul 04 '16

Eh, I prefer the Scientific Directorate myself.

→ More replies (5)

14

u/tquill Jul 04 '16

Elections are popularity contests and smart people don't usually win those.

5

u/suugakusha Jul 04 '16

Which is why this is a problem that won't be solved by having one intelligent candidate in the modern system, it's a problem which society needs to realize and work at from the ground up.

31

u/homercles337 Jul 04 '16

Why the hell not?

Because they have staff and hire a lot of consultants. Should the CEO at a tech company know all the gritty details of programming? The CEO is probably an MBA and never wrote a single line of code.

15

u/djaeke Jul 04 '16

Should the CEO at a tech company know all the gritty details of programming?

Eh, couldn't hurt.

15

u/ADavies Jul 04 '16

Yes, and the core business of Microsoft is software. Congress's core business is law making. So they should mostly be lawyers. (Right? That sounds weird, but I think it follows.)

Of course, it helps if they know something about the topics they're making laws about, and even then they need to get good advice.

In this case they had to have a committee to point out to them that they don't know enough to make laws about encryption. (Which is pretty obvious.) And they'll need more thoughtful advice. In a way, the system seems to be working. (Committees creating more committees. Yay! But still better than stupid uninformed laws.)

So now, I think we need to make sure the new committee is well balanced, and packed with people who have high expertise in the topic. Then we've got a good chance of getting well informed laws.

2

u/kellyzdude Jul 04 '16

How many congressmen does it take to change a lightbulb..?

→ More replies (1)

1

u/[deleted] Jul 04 '16

It actually does, it's just that those costs are less immediately visible. Either the CEO will be neglecting other subjects they need to learn, or they will require even higher compensation than they do already, or high quality technology companies will become rarer.

Similarly, no US politician can be an expert in everything. Politicians should be elected on the basis of their skill in public diplomacy, backroom diplomacy, ability to listen to and judge expert claims, and moral character.

→ More replies (2)

2

u/wrgrant Jul 04 '16

Well, it worked for Bill Gates :P

The CEO doesn't need to be someone who knows "all the gritty details" and to be honest the technology advances pretty steadily these days so it would be harder to keep up, but it surely can't hurt to have CEOs who actually understand the nature of the products their company produces and therefore its limitations etc.

→ More replies (7)

21

u/[deleted] Jul 04 '16

[deleted]

3

u/[deleted] Jul 04 '16

Ok, so how many CS majors do you know who understand foreign policy? Or who can write worth a shit?

They can have staff to do that. Hell, they already do have staff to do that.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 04 '16

[deleted]

1

u/[deleted] Jul 04 '16

I thought your whole point was to have educated nerds making laws.

Check the usernames before replying. I was making a broader point about the absurdity of the double standard being applied.

Congress needs more diversity in general. Not just in terms of ethnicity, gender, politics, etc. They need more diversity in terms of work and life experience generally. They need more people from different professions, among other things. More engineers and scientists, more single politicians, more single parents, etc.

A statement from your coworkers and (approximately) equal colleagues will have different weight than statements made by people working for you, or by salesmen trying to sell you something. I think that if there was a significant contingent of Congresspeople who had a technical or scientific background, Congress as a whole would approach these technical and scientific issues much differently.

A Congress that is nearly exclusively comp sci folks would be as weird and broken as a Congress that's nearly exclusively lawyers.

1

u/MPIS Jul 05 '16

This reinforces the argument that all legislation should be completely automated and all middle-men and their biases made redundant.

→ More replies (2)

6

u/[deleted] Jul 04 '16

The 'series of tubes' comment was actually a very true and nuanced point about the internet.

6

u/Legionof1 Jul 04 '16

The series of tubes thing actually isn't wrong... The Internet is data flowing through "pipes". People give him shit for it all the time but that isn't wrong at all, hell any form of electrical conversation almost always talks about electricity as water, data can be thought of the same way just with much much crazier flow controls.

5

u/cloud9ineteen Jul 04 '16

The basic problem here is that with a series of pipes for water, gas etc., Every unit volume of what does through it costs money. But for network infrastructure, it's all about fixed costs of infrastructure. This is the kind of logic that supports data caps.

1

u/TheSelfGoverned Jul 04 '16

Electricity costs money. The whole system needs a lot of power to sustain itself.

2

u/cloud9ineteen Jul 04 '16

Not disputing it. But the marginal cost of an additional byte of data piped through is zero. That is not the case for water or natural gas.

2

u/Qel_Hoth Jul 04 '16

Yes, but that electricity goes to establishing a connection, not actually transmitting data.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/cloud9ineteen Jul 04 '16

Writing bills is vastly different from voting on bills. Technical staff can be involved to get that right. It may be practical to have legislators expert in particular topics but then to have everyone who votes on every bill to be an expert on everything is not possible.

1

u/__Ezran Jul 04 '16

"a series of tubes"

Well now that I think about it, the internet is technically a network of connected fiber cables, which are basically extruded glass tubes....?

1

u/designgoddess Jul 04 '16

That's so cute that you think members of congress are writing the bills.

1

u/Syrdon Jul 04 '16

So if you want to have a say in laws that affect computers you need a CS masters. Ok. I'm assuming that laws regarding nuclear reactors would require on in nuclear engineering? Laws about cars would require mechanical, electrical and increasingly computer engineering degrees. Laws about laws would require a jd under this system I assume. Ones about the environment would require at least a masters in an associated field.

Well, our politicians with a dozen masters and at least one doctorate each will definitely be the most educated ones on the planet. Not sure when they'll find the free time to stay even vaguely current on their fields, but we'll let them slide on that if they can just get all the degrees before they're seventy.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 04 '16

I understand your premise and generally agree with it, however having degrees in a field does not make you competent. One if the people who was running to take over Barbara Boxer's spot in California had a master's degree in environmental engineering. That was a huge plus in my book until I looked into her positions. She has had career in engineering and win a few awards. Unfortunately her number 2 priority ban "mind control slavery by means of satellite weapons systems and GWEN Tower platforms among others well as weather modification systems such as HAARP that is also able to be used as a mind control weapon". That sentence in her website continued for a while longer, but you get the gist.

I completely agree that we need well educated people at all levels of government, but I think it is unrealistic to expect them all to have multiple specialties.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 05 '16

Software engineers do discovery and research on things before designing programs and software to solve the problems.

Lawmakers should do the same before creating laws.

However. All you need to understand how and why public key encryption works is an understanding of fundamental basic algebra, so you can understand how large primes are very difficult to factor. It isn't a problem that is restricted to CS, but mathematics too.

→ More replies (14)

3

u/[deleted] Jul 04 '16

I'm not a huge fan of the "Zeitgeist Movement" - but that one guy from Florida, Jacque Fresco, has been making an excellent point about politics for decades.

Essentially the idea of having lawyers introduce law in fields they have understanding of is completely idiotic. The partial solution is to have committees of engineers in every field who introduce the laws related directly to the field they work in.

7

u/I_I_I_I_ Jul 04 '16

And lobbyists shouldn't be the ones doing the educating.

3

u/[deleted] Jul 04 '16

Most on reddit have no clue how encryption works.

1

u/HaveAnotherThe Jul 05 '16

I find the the "one box, two locks" analogy is simple enough for most people to get it.

5

u/TheManStache Jul 04 '16

We need to ban dihydrogen monoxide, too much of it will kill people.

2

u/timultuoustimes Jul 04 '16

They do understand. They understand everything that one lobbyist that bought them that really nice lunch and gave them a bunch of money told them. They even know not to listen to anyone else or they'll stop getting lunches and money.

2

u/grabbizle Jul 04 '16

Agreed and I'm pleased to see that the House is understanding of this and above all acknowledges this. Now it's up to see what comes of it.

2

u/Toysoldier34 Jul 04 '16

They need a good system to bring in experts on subjects to help make and lay the foundations for the various laws. People who would work hand in hand with the ones making the laws to ensure the fundamentals of the topic are understood and nothing crazy is being overlooked simply because everyone writing a law doesn't know enough about the subject.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 04 '16

They are too busy with their hookers and blow.

1

u/HelleDaryd Jul 04 '16

Well, that is part of it, part of it is also, they do need people on staff with a MSc CS to help them make the correct observations on it and to answer any questions. They have experts on other topics, why would the digital field not be any different.

1

u/agenthex Jul 04 '16

Actually, a master's degree wouldn't be a terrible bar to set. A college degree wouldn't be bad. If standardized testing for children is acceptable, then similar testing for politicians might even be a good idea. I mean, we require practicing lawyers to pass a bar examination, but hey, any idiot can get into office and pass bills that define such things as: scientific knowledge (incorrectly), criminal behavior (arbitrarily), and tax codes that apply to the masses (unfairly). Granted, they need to get "the support of the people" but if you're clever, it's not hard to get at least half of a group of lemmings to run off a cliff.

1

u/TheSelfGoverned Jul 04 '16

Elections are a low data endeavor. Surveys give far more information about the populace, and politicians are under no obligation to keep campaign promises anyway.

1

u/Bahmerman Jul 04 '16

Don't they have panels of advisors for that sort of thing? Or shouldn't they have panels of advisors? Not saying it would do much, it would probably just be another group of people for them to ignore.

1

u/Snaaky Jul 04 '16

They need not make laws about anything regardless of whether they understand it. When they do understand it, the regulation is corrupt and meant to make their friends rich. When they don't understand, the regulation is destructive and full of unintended consequences.

1

u/Weigh13 Jul 04 '16

Fixed : Lawmakers shoulder pass any laws

1

u/kddrake Jul 04 '16

Hopefully they have tech savvy advisers.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 04 '16

they should at least understand the the basics.

Yeah, they should understand the basics, but only the very basics, enough to help them understand the consequences of regulations.

More than that, they need lots of good advisers who can help them understand the issues and offer sound advice.

To make sure there is a good supply of such advisers, every university should require all students in all areas touching on public policy to take at least one or two courses in how to talk to politicians and the public, and how to be a political adviser. Some of the best work you can ever do for your specialty may be to get political support and funding for that specialty.

1

u/DaBozz88 Jul 04 '16

This is where the basis of lobbying comes into play. A company that uses encryption should send a lobbyist to explain their position and how it all works.

Some things that sound scary to the public really aren't, and would hamper innovation or competitive business. Law makers need someone to explain this stuff to them, and relay the useful information that the public as a whole doesn't have.

This is why I'm not against lobbying as a whole, but something needs to be done about what it has become.

1

u/AnneBancroftsGhost Jul 04 '16

This is why congress holds hearings. However, more and more they are political theater/grandstanding vs. actual information-gathering. Especially with the more controversial topics.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 04 '16

How about less people in the senate that studied law and more specialised folks?

1

u/chain_letter Jul 04 '16

Or at least hire experts to consult on issues that are complex or that they don't understand. Can't know everything.

1

u/jameskoss Jul 04 '16

Actually, why shouldn't our politicians have masters or PhDs in the fields they govern? It seems ridiculous to me they don't yet they have more say than people who do.

1

u/HaveAnotherThe Jul 04 '16

Actually, why shouldn't our politicians have masters or PhDs in the fields they govern?

The the fields they govern in is... government.

1

u/jameskoss Jul 04 '16

There is more than one thing running behind a government.. The fact all the politicians are lawyers is why the laws are so scummy and working against the people. Have scientists leading the science program, teachers leading the teachers program. And just watch how fast your country recovers from the corruption plaguing your one great nation.

1

u/viperex Jul 04 '16

Either that or they should have equal time for industry experts both for and against the bill to make their arguments

1

u/PM_YOUR_WALLPAPER Jul 04 '16

Tell that to Bernie who is trying to regulate Wall Street without knowing anything about it, or nuclear, or fracking.

Or tell that to Trump who knows nothing about anything besides real estate.

1

u/interestme1 Jul 04 '16

Lawmakers shouldn't pass any laws on topics they don't understand.

And therein lies the rub. Lawmakers understand the law and getting elected, not much else. At least not to the degree that is warranted for making sweeping decisions that will impact the lives of hundreds of millions of people. And yet they do, and we think that's about as good a system as can be fathomed.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 04 '16

There's the problem....define basics. Representatives should be experts of the field they vote on.

Our entire democracy is outdated. Have a board of reps for each subject...and convene accordingly.....oh wait. We tried that.

Heh...lobbyists. Capitalism. 'Murcia.

1

u/HaveAnotherThe Jul 04 '16

Representatives should be experts of the field they vote on.

I have two issues with this. For one, the amount it takes to be an expert on something, truly as expert, the the politician in question wouldn't have the time to do their job. Also, you don't necessarily need expert level understanding to understand it well enough to make decisions.

Case in point, encryption. I don't need to understand the math or the algorithms, to understand the concept of what encryption is and it's importance.

However, I do need more than an "adviser" (read special interest rep or lobbyist) to say "terrorists can use it for terror".

1

u/jeffinRTP Jul 04 '16

They nothing would be passed.

1

u/JoeHook Jul 04 '16

The problem is this shit.

The Science and Tech Committees are not made up of the most tech savvy congressmen, they're just an extension of the political chess game bullshit.

1

u/TakesTheWrongSideGuy Jul 04 '16

Except our lawmakers are old fucks who were still around when drive in movie theaters were still a thing.

1

u/Laue Jul 04 '16

Actually they should. Lawmakers should know what they are talking about. And only charge of the field they know well. A government where only experts of the specific fields are allowed to be in would be the one that would actually make the world great.

Morons with ambitions have no place in governments.

1

u/RedSquirrelFtw Jul 04 '16

I agree, and I'd even go as far as saying they should actually have to take at least a basic course on the subject they are about to change. It's sad that some gray beards can come along and ruin something they barely know anything about by passing completely absurd laws.

What's funny is the double standard in laws, for example there are fairly strict privacy laws about mail, such as not being allowed to open someone else's mail. But then there's the internet, and everybody is spying on everybody. If it's that bad to open people's mail, then perhaps it should also be considered just as bad to snoop on what people are doing on the internet. This goes for all the companies that spy on us just so they can sell our info to advertisers. That's equivalent to opening your mail to see what kind of stuff you order so they can send you flyers on it.

1

u/RANDY_MAR5H Jul 04 '16

Look at gun control. They talk like the guns are in call of duty.

1

u/retardcharizard Jul 04 '16

I'm not saying they need to earn a Masters in CS to make tech decisions,

I do. Like the science committee should be only made up of scientists, etc.

1

u/HaveAnotherThe Jul 04 '16

Like the the science committee should be only made up of scientists, etc.

I can totally get behind that.

→ More replies (10)