Back Door Legislation Won't Have The White House's Support (Nor Its Opposition, Most Likely)

from the punting dept

Senators Dianne Feinstein and Richard Burr have been talking about legislation that forces tech companies to help law enforcement break into encrypted devices for quite a while now. Nearly a month ago, they suggested it was almost ready to be formally introduced, but indicated that the White House's response would determine when exactly that happened.

Now, Reuters is reporting that sources in the administration told them backdooring encryption will not have the President's support, adding another question mark to when we'll actually see this bill (though there's a chance it will show up this week).

Although the White House has reviewed the text and offered feedback, it is expected to provide minimal public input, if any, the sources said.

Its stance is partly a reflection of a political calculus that any encryption bill would be controversial and is unlikely to go far in a gridlocked Congress during an election year, sources said.

A White House spokesman declined to comment on the pending legislation, but referred to White House press secretary Josh Earnest's statements on encryption legislation. Last month, Earnest said the administration is "skeptical" of lawmakers' ability to resolve the encryption debate given their difficulty in tackling "simple things."

This isn't entirely surprising, as the administration has suggested it won't support such legislation since as far back as September when a leaked document outlined their options for responding to the debate. That document, too, seemed primarily concerned with "political calculus" and what the reaction would be in the public and congress to different versions of "not supporting" the bill, ranging from standing up for the actual truth to punting on the whole issue. In October, they decided to stay silent, though the President has since trotted out the same problematic arguments about compromise and absolutism that we've heard from many politicians.

Now, with the issue refusing to die and Burr and Feinstein's bill perpetually on the horizon, it looks like the White House is going to stick to its silence with "minimal public input" and see what happens. Given the current political climate, and the fact that any such bill almost certainly doesn't stand a chance of passing, this isn't exactly shocking — but it's still disappointing. As we noted last year, when your options include "take a clear stance on the right side of the issue", you shouldn't really need to consider alternatives. The President's open disapproval may not be necessary to prevent the bill from moving forward, but it would go a long way to convincing technology companies and the privacy-aware public that the administration genuinely understands the issue and will fight for what's right.


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 7 Apr 2016 @ 9:42am

    Outrage when Russia and China ask for the same back doors in
    5.... 4... 3... 2...

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 7 Apr 2016 @ 9:48am

    Administration does understand the issue

    The administration understands the issue and does not want to fight for what is right, because that would go against the public conduct of DOJ and the FBI at the very least, and goes against the general sentiment of most of the executive branch agencies that have any sort of "law enforcement" subdivision. Given the choice between supporting the public or supporting law enforcement, getting them to hide and refuse to support either is the best we can expect. Now, if major law enforcement agencies opposed the bill, perhaps because of concerns that it would let others snoop on them, then you would have the public and law enforcement on the same side and the calculus would be easy.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 7 Apr 2016 @ 9:52am

    Congress and the white house in discussion about proposals for laws without letting the public in on the discussion, what ever happened to the idea that they should be representing the will of the people?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 7 Apr 2016 @ 4:39pm

    I would bet most of my money that the white house will support this secretly. Though by doing to safeguard their citizens rights that's a given anyway.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Rekrul, 7 Apr 2016 @ 10:51pm

    "Back door legislation" is a good name for the bill. Feinstein and Burr want everyone to bend over and take up their "back door".

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 8 Apr 2016 @ 8:20am

    Burr-Feinstein discussion draft

    Senate encryption bill draft mandates ‘technical assistance’ ”, by Cory Bennett, The Hill, Apr 7, 2016
    A long-awaited Senate Intelligence Committee encryption bill would force companies to provide “technical assistance” to government investigators seeking locked data, according to a discussion draft obtained by The Hill.

    The measure, from Committee Chairman Richard Burr (R-N.C.) and ranking member Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) . . .


    See the full text below.
    From the draft bill:
    SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
          This Act may be cited as the “Compliance with Court Orders Act of 2016”.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Blowhard, 9 Apr 2016 @ 7:45pm

    Save California's Tech Industry

    Feinstein is an idiot. Even if this legislation doesn't pass she's a serious liability to California. Just like the FBI director's lies and veiled threats, the shenanigans of Feinstein chip away at the prestige and trust in American technology. Unlike the FBI that exists primarily to serve its own interests, the role of Feinstein is to represent the interests of California's citizens. Feinstein needs to go even if it means electing a different idiot.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      John Fenderson (profile), 9 Apr 2016 @ 10:15pm

      Re: Save California's Tech Industry

      She's up for reelection in 2018 and has publicly stated that she intends to retire after her current terms ends.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2016 @ 3:01pm

        Re: Re: Save California's Tech Industry

        She's up for reelection in 2018 and has publicly stated that she intends to retire after her current terms ends.
        Dianne Feinstein is indeed a class 1 senator, and thus up for re-election in November 2018. However, on retirement plans, I believe you're confusing her with Senator Barbara Boxer.
        On January 8, 2015, Boxer announced that she would not seek re-election in 2016.
        A month or so ago, someone had claimed Senator Feinstein had announced retirement plans, but when I attempted to verify that news then, I was unable to confirm that. Instead, there's news such as—

        Feinstein trying for 5th full term? Invites go out for fundraiser”, by Carla Marinucci, SFGate, Thu, Sep 3, 2015
        California U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, 82, has sent the first signals that she intends to run for a fifth term — invitations to a Washington, D.C., fundraiser for her 2018 campaign went out Thursday [Sep 3, 2015]. . . .

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2016 @ 3:20pm

          Re: Re: Re: Save California's Tech Industry

          … Sep 3, 2015…
          More recently—

          Will Dianne Feinstein run again for Senate? 'Ask me that in about a year' ”, by Cathleen Decker, Los Angeles Times, Apr 1, 2016
          Don’t ask Dianne Feinstein just yet whether she plans to run for a fifth full term in the U.S. Senate, a seat that will be on the ballot in 2018.

          “I’ve got two years and nine months — ask me that in about a year,” Feinstein said with a grin Thursday during a meeting with Los Angeles Times editors and reporters. “I’ll give you the answer then.”
          So that story is from the beginning of this month.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          John Fenderson (profile), 11 Apr 2016 @ 6:55am

          Re: Re: Re: Save California's Tech Industry

          Yes, I was wrong. Feinstein has not definitively said that she's retiring. However in a number of interviews now she has indicated that it's something that she's strongly considering.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Insider Shop - Show Your Support!

Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

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