[Cryptography] Text of Burr-Feinstein encryption backdoor bill

[Phillip Hallam-Baker]

On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 2:25 PM, Henry Baker <hbaker1 at pipeline.com> wrote:
> FYI --
>
> https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2797124/Burr-Feinstein-Encryption-Bill-Discussion-Draft.pdf
>
> "Compliance with Court Orders Act of 2016"
>
> It is the sense of Congress that-
>
> (1) no person or entity is above the law;
>
> (2) economic growth prosperity security, stability,
> and liberty require adherence to the rule of law;
>
> (3) the Constitution and laws of the United States
> provide for the safety, security, and civil
> liberties of all United States persons and the
> protections and obligations of these laws apply to
> all persons within United States jurisdiction;
>
> (4) all providers of communications services and
> products (including software) should protect the
> privacy of United States persons through implementation
> of appropriate data security and still respect the rule
> of law and comply with all legal requirements and court
> orders;
>
> (5) to uphold both the rule of law and protect
> the interests and security of the United States, all
> persons receiving an authorized judicial order for
> information or data must provide, in a timely  manner,
> responsive, intelligible information or data, or
> appropriate technical assistance to obtain such
> information or data; and
>
> (6) covered entities must provide responsive,
> intelligible information or data, or appropriate
> technical assistance to a government pursuant order.

It is a draft, but right now the bill does nothing but huff, puff and preen.

What are the penalties for non compliance?

What if the technology used makes compliance impossible? The bill
specifically states that it does not mandate the use of any specific
technology.

The bill is very very strange. It doesn't appear to be intended to go anywhere.