@moxieman99 when I said "just compensation" I was thinking of the fifth amendment, the analogy being eminent domain.

[edit] of course just compensation isn't usually applied to services, usually just real estate. There are many unfunded federal mandates, such as the one you mention as well as EMTALA, and indeed most other government regulation.

However I was being sarcastic, as I agree that the chances of Congress having any sort of clue is pretty small. My particular legislator is a nitwit.

There's nothing surprising about that These are elected officials, not technical experts. What they see is "Apple's thumbing its nose at the Federal Court and the FBI, leaning on one side of the Fourth Amendment but not the other." They're going to do what they do: they're going to write a law and get it passed. But, they don't necessarily know how, and that's where the (entire) crypto/privacy/computer industry needs to weigh-in. The prescribed time to do so is now, during the "discussion" phase.

I do not argue with you, nor with anyone, that the present phrasing is deplorable, un-implementable, unworkable. (But, would a non-technical legislator be expected to know that?)

Someone, e.g. a judge, is going to have to decide whether or not they "meant that," and to rule, case-wise, on what they "did" mean. Trouble is, the law as-proposed, as it could be interpreted, basically "cannot be implemented as (maybe) written." The wording is flawed. But, the persons who wrote it, using ordinary expressions of ordinary human speech (i.e. applicable to the behavior of other human beings), probably did not and do not understand the obscure-to-them technical implications. The same might be said of some judges, all of them being experts in law, but not necessarily technology.

The key, I think, is what we try to tell Congress. We can't say, "don't do anything." We can't say, "a device that you hold in your hand (or, that sits on your desk) is an impregnable bastion of privacy." We can't kiss one half of the Fourth Amendment while we kick the other half. At the same time, we do need to be explaining why civilian encryption must be strong, why Federal money should continue to be spent assisting peer-reviews and civilian open-source projects, and what role encryption actually plays in the defense of the individual citizens(!) and businesses throughout the nation. We need to do this in a way that points to the need to listen to the arguments, and to guide these people ... not to "decide to do nothing," but to "do" the all-around-best bit of writing that they can. There is a procedure for registering public and expert/friend comments.

For the first ten years or so of Internet Time, there weren't too many laws or regulations, and courts were trying to apply hundred-year-old principles and precedents to something that is totally and completely unprecedented. (Laws such as HIPAA and Sarb-Ox actually did contain a pretty-substantial data-handling component, and show that Congress was paying attention to what industry experts were telling them. Therefore, those laws are pretty enforceable.) New laws are going to start appearing, all around the world, and we are going to be subject to all of them. The "happy days" of largely-unregulated operation never were "a precedent." They were merely, "infancy."

Sundial wrote" Trouble is, the law as-proposed, as it could be interpreted, basically "cannot be implemented as (maybe) written."

Absolutely wrong. The purposed law, if passed, CAN be implemented as written. The RESULTS would be absolutely disastrous world wide, but encryption CAN be crippled, keys CAN be put in a central repository, and back doors CAN be put in place. Thus the law can be implemented as written.

All right ... all right! "Tahh, dahhh ... you win the argument!"

Let's all just sit on the Capitol steps with our tin-foil hats, stop using "https" or "ssh" until "secret, closed-source, government-issued software" can be installed on all our machines to capture the session-keys that are used anywhere and everywhere, so that "the guv'mint" can eavesdrop on our every online (or, offline ...) move. (Never mind that it might take years for the Federal Bureau of Cryptography to even get its marble building constructed ...)



Or ... let's start writing letters and participating in the Congressional "discussion" process. Believe it or not, the US Congress does solicit public comment on its actions, especially from recognized authorities (and industry participants) in matters of interest. A "rant" will not get very far, but an informed comment as to why certain language should not be used ... especially when it recommends specific language that could be used instead, and clearly explains why ... is always(!) welcomed.

My interpretation of "cannot be implemented" is obviously more pragmatic than yours. "Yeah, the US Congress 'can' do any thing that it damn-well wants," but no one really wants to be the one who drilled a hole in the side of the ship-of-state just to find out what was on the other side.

The obvious legislative intent of this bill is "to compel Apple et al to cooperate with the FBI et al." And the obvious (to us!) flaw is that certain wording ... and, yeah, certain comments made by law-enforcement officials who were, no doubt, extremely pissed-off ... absolutely must not be used in the final version.

"Very well then, Citizen Proofreader ... what 'edits' would you propose, and why?"

(P.S. "Don't bother to tell me that Apple should 'get away with it ...'") ("Don't tell me that I ought not achieve this bill's intentions. Instead, tell me how best to achieve them. Whether the final bill ... as written by m-e, lives or dies on the Floor is my concern, nor yours.")

[[ As you may have guessed, I've played this political game before . . . ]]

Instead of saying that the sky is falling, start writing letters to the decision-makers and otherwise participating in the public-comments process. If you possess technical expertise, use it.

Sundial wrote: "(P.S. "Don't bother to tell me that Apple should 'get away with it ...'").

Okay, I won't, but that doesn't alter the fact that the only way Apple, and others, "don't get away with it" is by back doors, crippled encryption, or key repositories.

You seem to think that the government can dragoon others into doing its bidding. You have no basis for that fantasy.

'Nuff said.