[Cryptography] Text of Burr-Feinstein encryption backdoor bill

[Donald Eastlake]

On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 2:44 PM, Bill Cox <waywardgeek at gmail.com> wrote:
> IANAL, but it seems clear from the rest of the text that this bill would
> specifically outlaw all strong encryption, not just end-to-end encryption.
> It has no exceptions for open-source, so all full disk encryption products
> would become illegal, as would programs such as WhatsApp, iMessage,
> TrueCrypt and gnupg.  My personal laptop has an Intel SDD with full-disk
> encryption, which would no longer be available for sale.  My work laptop
> uses LUKS disk encryption, which looks like it also would become illegal,
> since LUKS has no known back door.  The recent proposal to allow a
> combination of several governments to decrypt data when they cooperate to do
> so would also be illegal, since this law requires that the US government can
> do it alone.

You must have read something other than what I read. First of all, it
isn't a law of any kind, just a "sense of Congress" resolution.
Second, even if it were a law, I don't see where it prohibits any
product or service. It just says you have to provide "data/information
or appropriate technical assistance" if ordered to do so by a court -
by implication lawfully so ordered. It doesn't say your "appropriate
technical assistance" has to succeed in providing access to encrypted
data. It doesn't stop you from appealing and trying to get the court
order invalidated. It's all just a feel good no-op.

Thanks,
Donald
=============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA
 d3e3e3 at gmail.com

> I have never understood Dianne Feinstiein's opposition to encryption, which
> she has fought since the 1990s.  Why we continue to vote for such a
> non-technical dork to represent California is beyond me.
>
> Bill