Senator Mitch McConnell To Obama: Please, Just Tell Us What Law You Need To Ban Encryption And You'll Get It

from the begging-to-undermine-american-security dept

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has always been a friend of the intelligence community, but he's using the attack in San Bernadino to ramp up the anti-encryption insanity to new levels, practically begging President Obama to tell him what law he wants to ban encryption, and McConnell will help make sure Congress delivers. McConnell's statement was laying out what he thought President Obama should do in response to ISIS, and includes this ridiculous line:
He should tell us what legal authorities he needs to defeat encrypted online communications, and what is needed to reestablish our capture, interrogation, and surveillance capabilities.
"Defeat encrypted online communications"? Is he crazy? We need encrypted online communications to better protect us, and yet McConnell is trying to undermine those communications. He's actively proposing to make us all less safe. And, of course, talking about "reestablishing" our "surveillance capabilities" is about giving the NSA more surveillance powers. McConnell was, of course, the key person who tried to block any attempt at rolling back the NSA's unconstitutional phone records collection program.

Now, we know that President Obama didn't go quite as far as McConnell asked, but he did still push for a more "voluntary" solution -- which may morph into Congress doing something if people don't speak out loudly about what an incredibly dumb idea this is.

Filed Under: congress, encryption, going dark, mitch mcconnell, president obama

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

  1. identicon
    NXTangl, 8 Dec 2015 @ 12:13pm

    Re: Just ban XOR.

    I realize that this is a joke, but I'm sorry, this is just obviously not enough to ban.

    Looking at the truth table for XOR, we can clearly see:
    00 - 0
    01 - 1 connection
    10 - 1 connection
    11 - 0

    that a XOR b = ((NOT a) AND B) OR ((NOT b) AND a)

    [a little more work also turns up a XOR b = ((NOT a) OR (NOT b)) AND (a OR b)]

    So we need to ban NOT. (We could try banning AND or OR, but DeMorgan tells us that this is ineffective if NOT is still available.)

    However, on most machines, NOT a can be implemented as 1 - a.

    So we need to ban -, too, and then we're done.
    Until congress realizes that a sufficiently determined individual could just implement NOT one bit at a time, but eh, they're not that bright.

    Anyway, what I came here to say was this: "If cryptography is outlawed, then only outlaws will have cryptography. Also, how do these idiots keep getting elected?"

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter

Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: Copying Is Not Theft
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads


Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.