Top Democratic Senator Will Seek Legislation To "Pierce" Through Encryption (dailydot.com) 556
Patrick O'Neill writes: Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) will seek legislation requiring the ability to "pierce" through encryption to allow American law enforcement to read protected communications with a court order. She told the Senate Judiciary committee on Wednesday that she would seek a bill that would give police armed with a warrant based on probable cause the ability to read encrypted data. "I have concern about a PlayStation that my grandchildren might use," she said, "and a predator getting on the other end, and talking to them, and it's all encrypted. I think there really is reason to have the ability, with a court order, to be able to get into that."
zOMG (Score:5, Funny)
THINK OF THE CHILDREN!
So... (Score:3, Interesting)
...I expect Slashdot to thoroughly Savage Diane for her attempts to undermine internet freedom and privacy just as they savaged Trump for merely suggesting what Hillary Suggested. [washingtonpost.com]
and frankly my dear fellow... (Score:5, Insightful)
she deserved no less. she's an embarrassment to the state of California and the United States. (No, I did not vote for her or her "friend" Boxer.)
Re:and frankly my dear fellow... (Score:5, Insightful)
She's been pretty frequently castigated around here too. A by-no-means-exhaustive list of previous Slashdot articles on Feinstein doing or proposing stupid things: videogame control [slashdot.org], persecuting Snowden [slashdot.org], trying to kill net neutrality [slashdot.org], defending NSA surveillance [slashdot.org], etc.
On a side note, her husband [wikipedia.org], a hedge-fund manager who somehow got himself appointed to the University of California board of regents, isn't too great either.
Re:and frankly my dear fellow... (Score:4, Informative)
She's a frequent offender over on my gun boards as well. Having examined her record, I would actually rate her as a Fascist. There is rarely an expansion of government power that she doesn't support. She's pretty far over on the 'statist' side of the spectrum.
Re:and frankly my dear fellow... (Score:4, Insightful)
She also wants to ban radio-controlled model aircraft, and not just guns but body armor. If there's a horrible idea that Feinstein _isn't_ strongly in favor of, it's probably just because she hasn't heard it yet.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I've thought Trump was a clown, but the Muslim comment was absolutely chilling- "top polling GOP candidate vows to repeal first amendment" is how I read that. Clearly, Republicans will address this issue, but holy crap. The internet thing would have soured my already poor opinion of him, but it came after the "ban the Muslims" comment. That's straight frightening.
Re:So... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:So... (Score:5, Funny)
You know it's bad when you have a suggestion for deletion of a freedom and it gets condemned by Dick Cheney!
Re: (Score:3)
Re:So... (Score:4, Insightful)
Trump takes it 100000000 times further
Trump is a private citizen, and despite his current poll numbers, he is NOT going to be elected to anything. Feinstein is a senior senator with powerful committee seats, and a lot of influence over legislation. Her positions actually matter.
As a Californian, I am very ashamed that she is my senator, and I don't understand why anyone would vote for her.
Re: The rants matter little, the votes matter (Score:4, Insightful)
legislate Pi = 3 while you're at it. (Score:4, Insightful)
Math is hard.
Okay... (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps the good Senator should reflect upon what King Canute actually intended to say when he made his demonstration about his inability to stop the tide.
Mathematical algorithms, like so many parts of our physical universe, don't give a flying fuck about Congress. It's like trying to pass legislation to make Pi equal to 3.
She is merely following precendent (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
>> algorithms, like so many parts of our physical universe, don't give a flying fuck
As per Kerckhoff, the algorithms are already known. Politicians (most recently Clinton, Trump and now Feinstein) are either after our keys (e.g., key escrow) or trying to get us to always also use a known government key in our encryption.
Re:Okay... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Okay... (Score:5, Informative)
So to sum up I'm not really worried about things that will take longer than the heat death [wikipedia.org] of the universe, and if the US government has access to substantially more energy than is available in this universe then we have bigger problems. The first that comes to mind is waste heat even with an ideal computer.
Re:Okay... (Score:4, Insightful)
If having encryption key w/o escrow is illegal, then only criminals will have encryption keys that are not escrowed.
Interesting how that works out...
Re:Okay... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
What I suspect is happening is they are trying to pass an inconsequential law that can't possibly do what it is supposed to do so nobody really opposes it, who is going to get excited over a law saying the government can try to decrypt comms that they can't decrypt? Later they use that as a precedence to get something more intrusive passed, like making it illegal to distribute encryption software w/o a backdoor.
Re:Okay... (Score:5, Informative)
The reference to re-using primes is about Diffie-Hellman key agreement protocol, which is susceptible to breaking discrete logarithms for a given prime. This is currently feasible with 1024-bit primes, and it is true that a significant number of web sites share the same prime modulus, which makes the expense required to break that prime worth it.
This is a different problem from factoring the modulus used in an RSA key, which is what you're talking about.
Breaking modern encryption algorithms without the key is infeasible, with or without quantum computers. The attacks are all going to be on the key agreement (often called key exchange) algorithms. RSA and DH are both vulnerable to quantum techniques, but there are other algorithms that appear to be safe.
Re: (Score:3)
They can just pass a law that says all computers are now quantum computers. Problem solved.
Re: (Score:3)
Mathematical algorithms ... don't give a flying fuck about Congress.
Do cryptographers give a flying fuck about prison sentences?
Re:Okay... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Nothing wrong with that, it merely implies a requirement for non-Euclidean geometry.
Will somebody think of the children! (Score:5, Insightful)
A.K.A. "will somebody please add backdoors that will eventually get abused by the government and then used by thieves and hackers to do even worst shit."
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And how precisely will the US government force backdoors on open source or even private software? If I go out and make my own VPN software, then how will a mere law be able to "pierce" it?
Re:Will somebody think of the children! (Score:5, Insightful)
Because government people live in fantasy world?
Re:Will somebody think of the children! (Score:5, Insightful)
They will put you in jail for distribution of non-licensed encryption technology until you add that backdoor.
Re: (Score:3)
Sure they can. They're called laws. If the Internet is "public", they can attach laws to it's use.
Car analogy: I can't go driving my car around at night on public roads without the headlights on. But if I want to do so on a private road, that's between me and the owner of the road.
Re: (Score:2)
By clapping you in prison until you surrender the keys to "escrow"?
Well-placed Hellfire missile strike?
Obviously, if you don't agree, you're the ENEMY. And we know how that ends.
Re: (Score:2)
i have this wrench, the password is, however hard i need to hit you that's between too-painful and non-fatal.
it's a very difficult game, so i think i'm gonna need a bunch of whacks at it.
Re:Will somebody think of the children! (Score:4)
They can't, which is why the next logical step would be to ban sale and use of encrypted communication which the government can't snoop on, like some in the UK have proposed.
Because we all know that all we need to stop those terrorists is a well thought-out law.
Re: (Score:3)
I wonder how many people die each year because of ISIS and how many die because of peanut allergies.
Lock up your grandmother? Damn right! She was making bio-weapons!
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
But it's worked out so well with those TSA master keys for locked luggage--oh, wait... [schneier.com]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yeah, no.
UEFI is just a new standard of firmware that replaces BIOS. It does many things better than BIOS. It's why your new PC boots so fast. It gives hardware OEMs the ability to add pre-OS drivers for different hardware. Largely, it's a good thing.
"SecureBoot" is just a module for EFI that (poorly) attempts to prevent boot loader rootkit hacks. A lot of people like to bitch and gripe about SecureBoot because Microsoft played with the idea of requiring it to be there in order to run Windows 8+, but y
So WHY does she want to destroy American IT (Score:5, Insightful)
All I have to say is (Score:5, Informative)
2345 A3DF 5782
Re:All I have to say is (Score:5, Funny)
2345 A3DF 5782
"Be sure to drink your Ovaltine"
Or you know... (Score:5, Informative)
"I have concern about a PlayStation that my grandchildren might use," she said, "and a predator getting on the other end, and talking to them, and it's all encrypted. I think there really is reason to have the ability, with a court order, to be able to get into that."
You could be involved with your kids and *you* be in charge of who they are communicating with via your playstation
Re:Or you know... (Score:5, Funny)
We urgently need the technology to hear the voices in the senator's head.
Re: (Score:2)
Or for the times when you aren't there, it would be more reasonable for the parent/guardian, to be able to log the traffic.
Pretty sure by the time the FBI becomes involved, it already too late from the parents POV...
lock her up (Score:3, Funny)
She OK with them talking to predators if it is not encrypted?!?
child abuse!
Re: (Score:3)
She is the same senator that suggested that if we ban guns, the bad guys will put theirs down, because that is human nature.
She is the same senator that said that High Power Rifles make it "Legal to hunt humans"
But since she has a (D) after her name, she is better than any (R), (L) or (I) in the state of California (or so I am told)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You could be involved with your kids and *you* be in charge of who they are communicating with via your playstation
I don't have kids, but every interaction I've ever had with them has taught me that when you're not looking, they're doing everything they can to test their boundaries. Keeping watch over them 24/7 is not a realistic ask.
Regardless, this is not a reason to weaken encryption. If watching what their kids do online is the only concern, a parental control mode that does logging should appease even the most capable of helicopter parents.
Re:Or you know... (Score:5, Insightful)
"I have concern about a PlayStation that my grandchildren might use," she said, "and a predator getting on the other end, and talking to them, and it's all encrypted. I think there really is reason to have the ability, with a court order, to be able to get into that."
You could be involved with your kids and *you* be in charge of who they are communicating with via your playstation
Not only that, but kids have ALWAYS had clandestine communications. When Senator Feinstein was a teenager, I'd bet a lot money that she went for a walk alone with her friends sometimes. You go to the park, you walk in the woods or the meadow (in more rural areas), or whatever. Those communications may not have been formally "encrypted," but they were the private communications of the kids nonetheless. Back then, if you proposed having someone walk around with a microphone or tail your kid to monitor all communications, just in case something bad might happen -- well, people would think you were insane.
And, you know what? Child abduction rates and violent crimes against kids were likely greater back then. At least for the past 40 years or so since child crime statistics have been accurately kept, the trend has basically been down, down, down. And the vast majority of such crimes are perpetrated by family members and close family friends, not random strangers -- met on the internet or elsewhere.
Yes, it is true that your kids or grandkids may have greater contact with strangers through the internet and electronic communications than in previous generations. And that's why monitoring what they do IN PERSON is important. If they're in your house, watch what your grandkids are doing. Ask who they're talking to on the Playstation if it seems weird. Be involved.
This nonsense about justifying encryption backdoors is coming from a combination of completely out-of-whack fears with little basis in reality. Child crime is down, but our fears of it are higher than ever (particularly when it comes to strangers, who are the least likely to harm your kids). Terrorist acts are few and far between (despite recent activity), yet we're more worried about them rather than actual dangers that are hundreds or even thousands of times more likely to kill us (driving, obesity and other "bad" health habits, etc.).
People have always had fears driven by sensationalism -- see Renaissance paintings of Hellfire and read old-fashioned "fire and brimstone" sermons, for example. These modern fears are almost as loopy.
Re:Or you know... (Score:5, Insightful)
Not any more. Now, the cops can be called if some IDIOT sees your kids playing by themselves. Now you drive your kids everywhere to meet other kids in controlled environments.
And that is considered NORMAL BEHAVIOUR.
See also Feinstein's defense of government spying on citizens. But her rage when one department spies on another department.
Re:Or you know... (Score:5, Insightful)
Not likely if they're teenagers.
True, but the age is rising all the time. Did you know that it's now grounds for arrest if you leave an 11-year-old alone in a car [wfsb.com] while you go into a store?
Apparently an 11-year-old (who requested to stay in the car, as I often did at that age too when my mom went shopping) might be in danger of suffocation or overheating or whatever. Note in the article: Police said the car interior temp had risen to 85 degrees (!!) before they arrived, apparently just in the nick of time. And apparently the police must have determined that the 11-year-old had no other possible course of action (with that temperature rising to... moderately warm... levels), like rolling down the window, opening the door, or... heavens -- going into the store and joining her mother!
In a few years, this will be moved up to teenagers. Particularly if there's some sort of high-profile abduction or something. It doesn't matter how rare it is.
And if you think this arrest is an isolated case, you'd be wrong. Look around a bit and you'll see plenty of cases of parents being arrested in recent years for letting preteens (9-, 10-, 11-year-olds) walk alone to/from a local neighborhood park or playing there alone. Heck, parents have even been arrested when an 11-year-old boy was alone [yahoo.com] playing in HIS OWN YARD for a while.
(By the way, of course leaving young kids in a locked car is a horrible thing, and many do die each year. But presumably an 11-year-old has a few more options than being stuck in a car seat until they die of heat stroke.)
Just in the past couple years, the age for arresting parents for "endangering" them by leaving them alone for a few minutes has risen from somewhere around 7 or 8 up to at least 11. Teens aren't that far off.
Democrats are authoritarians (Score:5, Insightful)
Some republicans are too, but I wonder if there is an area of life that politicians, especially Democrats - don't want to control?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
All Democrats.
All Republicans.
Re:Democrats are authoritarians (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
The truth is, indeed, somewhere in the middle, but it is my contention that any law that cannot be understood by an average high school senior should be declared invalid, AND that there should be an explicit finite limit on the number of laws. I'm thinking somewhere around 5,000. Something that people would have a reasonable hope of understanding.
P.S.: "understood by an average high school senior" means that if you took 11 high school seniors, at least 7 of them would understand it the same way. Writing
Re: (Score:3)
Please cite a situation, which was not caused by legislation, that has been permanently improved by legislation and where the unintended consequences have not made the situation worse overall..
Well, I certainly enjoy living in a society where people can't legally grab me on the street and steal my wallet.
Re: (Score:3)
What will you do? Shout "There is legislation making this illegal !"
And then everyone will... (Score:4, Interesting)
She's 82 years old (Score:2)
I'm sure she means well (I mean, at least she's talking about needing a court-order, which is a Constitutionally compliant practice) . But yeah, pretty bad.
Still nothing like a "series of tubes" though.
Re:She's 82 years old (Score:5, Informative)
Still nothing like a "series of tubes" though.
You're talking about a powerful senator who sits on several defense and intelligence related committees who - on seeing some Code Pink protesters outside her house trying to fly a pink plastic mall kiosk toy helicopter with a 10-inch rotor (and tethered to some string!) later told reporters that she'd had people spying through her windows with a drone, and that all of them should be illegal.
"Series of tubes" is downright informative by comparison to her grasp on technology and her urge to run people's lives.
Re:She's 82 years old (Score:5, Informative)
Re:She's 82 years old (Score:4, Informative)
Re:She's 82 years old (Score:5, Interesting)
Nanny state alert! (Score:5, Insightful)
"I have concern about a PlayStation that my grandchildren might use," she said, "and a predator getting on the other end, and talking to them, and it's all encrypted. I think there really is reason to have the ability, with a court order, to be able to get into that."
If you are so worried about a predator talking to your grandchildren through the Playstation network, why are they using it unsupervised?
Take care of your own problems, don't make the government do it for you.
Speaks with forked tongue (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Speaks with forked tongue (Score:5, Interesting)
Same with her stance on gun control. While one of the biggest proponents, she has (or had... she may have given it up in shame when this was revealed) a CCW permit in California, which is near impossible for an average person to obtain
Re:Speaks with forked tongue (Score:5, Informative)
Hypocrisy is nothing new with her--Feinstein ALWAYS carves out exceptions for herself. Despite being one of the most anti-gun politicians you'll find in the US, she carries (or at least used to carry) a firearm for self defense.
But this is totally not a backdoor! (Score:3)
*facepalm*
</thread>
Uhhh, that's easy (Score:2)
If you have access to the conversation on the children's side, you have ALREADY pierced encryption. The endpoints aren't hidden by encryption in most cases, that's a function of NAT/VPN/tor/etc
Lawmakers don't understand technology (Score:5, Insightful)
The bad guys are just going to keep using existing software that doesn't have these backdoors (esp open source software that can be vetted). In other words, this legislation will accomplish absolutely nothing but making mainstream communication tools less secure.
Re:Lawmakers don't understand technology = AMEN (Score:4, Insightful)
Less secure means that security conscious users will try to circumvent the restrictions, too.
I'll bet most parents don't know what their kids are sending and receiving right now in all our devices. Kids either get proper training early on from parents or not.
Even if you "force" the bad guys to get new computing devices (LOL), the brainless legislator doesn't realize that there are images which look normal and are viewable by anyone to have embedded proprietary information that only the sender and recipient know of and whether secret messages exist or not. There is NO ENCRYPTION for viewing the image itself.
Bad guys are always going to be able to create ways to pass secret messages.
I guess both the republicans and the democrats (Score:2)
So, i assume both sides would vote on the same. Does this also represent what the voters want? Or does this represent a narrow band of the ruling elite.
Re: (Score:3)
This represents military industrial complex uber alles with a thin veneer of 2 party psuedo democracy dolloped on a hardened turd of corporate oligarchy.
See, they want to to keep spying on anything and everything, it's how they keep their power.
Responsbile parenting (Score:5, Interesting)
That's funny did Dianne Feinstein just imply that she can't trust her own children to raise their children properly?
Rider added to bill (Score:2)
Pi = 3
Here are your problems: (Score:5, Insightful)
Dianne Goldman Berman Feinstein, born Dianne Emiel Goldman[1] (/ËfaÉnstaÉn/; born June 22, 1933), is the senior United States Senator from California. A member of the Democratic Party, she has served in the Senate since 1992.
Served on the Senate since 1992.
82 years old with no fucking clue what she's talking about.
She knows exactly what she wants, however (Score:3)
Don't get all caught up and just focus on her stupid statements. Focus on the real issue: A never ending struggle to screw you and me. And our kids. Forever and ever.
Says you (Score:5, Interesting)
82 years old with no fucking clue what she's talking about.
I don't buy the ignorance gag for a minute. Politicians can hear both sides of every argument, and generally do. They are all well educated, and have well educated staff around them all the time. When it's convenient for them to look dumb, they play their role and look dumb. And the asinine measure that people pushed back against becomes an incremental step toward their agenda, and in extreme cases Black Projects that the citizens don't know about for decades.
For nearly half a century I have seen people believe the idiot gag and remain amazed at how far down the shitter we have gone in so little time. Meanwhile, a few people said what I just did.. and they have predicted correctly.
Think of the children cuts both ways (Score:5, Insightful)
I have a concern about the IM apps my grandchildren might use and a predator getting in the middle and spoofing messages from their parents. A predator could pierce through encryption and send messages like "mommy won't be able to pick you up from school, but uncle bob will, so do whatever he says."
Re:Think of the children cuts both ways (Score:5, Insightful)
I have a concern that my (future) grandchildren might have to grow up in a goddamn totalitarian dictatorship because of anti-American sociopaths like Feinstein. In fact, I'm way more worried about that than I am about Internet predators!
Ugh - What did law enforcement do before?? (Score:4, Interesting)
From TFA:
What did LE do before the internet?? There are all kinds of things that are/were said and done in this world, Mr. FBI, that you did not, will not, and often should not know. Why is that difficult for you to understand? Guy eats breakfast in a diner every morning; two weeks later he kills people. You don't know what was said in that diner, either. Should all diners be required to record all conversations that take place in their establishment, and forward them to the FBI?
Wait, don't answer that, you probably think they should.
Old people yelling at clouds (Score:2)
That's not how it works! (Score:2)
I love how there is a fundamental misunderstanding of how encryption works. The whole Playstation argument is fucking stupid too. Microsoft/Sony will work with law enforcement to trace paedophiles who use their gaming networks (even though most abusers don't use any technology. They abuse people they know; usually close friends or family members. But that's a whole-nother issue).
This goes back to SOPA, PIPPA and any other law about the Internet. Congressmen and Senators are typically students of law. They h
Oh FFS, again? (Score:4, Interesting)
Can this get any more formulaic?
Is there a handbook on legislative tactics that specifically says, "If you can't get what you want any other way, emphatically shout THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!11eleventy!1!"
Or is this tactic really that effective, so people continue to use it over and over?
Give the cops other superpowers too. (Score:5, Funny)
Feinstein make me think of the Dead Kennedys (Score:2)
Diane "Buttlicker" Feinstein. You had it right all along, Jello.
This is getting serious (Score:3)
Consider that so many businesses and people have centralized their information into "the cloud" and more are moving everyday. Centralizing puts us all in a much weaker position since the cloud providers (Amazon, Google, Microsoft, Rackspace, etc.) will have to follow these potential laws.
In contrast, before this cloud centralization millions of servers would have to be updated all over the country and at a minimum it would take much longer to implement something like this. People and companies would also have more options and control over their data.
In any case, it's disappointing to me that this is happening in the United States. It reminds me of why my father risked his life fleeing from the communist country I was born in.
Lastly, it's not going to matter anyway. The criminals will still break the law and probably move to even more encrypted/secured services.
Her own example shows how pointless this bill is (Score:5, Insightful)
This bill would require a court order before the encryption can be "pierced".
Well, if you have a court order, you don't need to pierce the encryption - if the suspect fails to give you access to the messages in question, you can lock him up for failure to comply with a court order! And you can keep him there indefinitely until he complies! THE GRANDKIDS ARE SAFE!!
Re: (Score:3)
But they already can... (Score:4, Insightful)
... force you to decrypt any encrypted document with a court order. In fact, the law is so broad that if you go into court and the judge says "please give these nice officers the encryption keys for your hard drive" and you say "no", they can say "OK, I'll just put you in jail for contempt of court, without bail, until you do." Which can literally be forever. There are no limits that I know of for jail time for contempt of court for an ongoing refusal to comply with a court order. So it can literally be life not even in prison, in JAIL, until you do.
If th issue is terrorism, the powers are even broader and can involve you being sent to a concentration ca -- I mean "federal jail on a remote island" until you cough up a lot more than just the keys.
What they want is the power to read dynamical communication streams in real-time, because decrypting them is often too difficult even for the NSA and because a lot of them are encrypted with one-time or digitally saved keys so that a user CAN'T just cough them up. If my ssh private keys went away, do you think I have them memorized? NOBODY could decrypt my old network traffic, not even me!
Now we just have to wait a bit for the legislative branch to realize that a) we lack the theorems needed to make their nifty idea work; and b) any end user can trivially work around it by simply exchanging keys for one of the known secure algorithms; c) it isn't necessary for any saved, recorded data; and d) it isn't constitutional. It's exactly like trying to pass legislature that would require all house keys to be "registered" and constructed in such a way that a master key in the possession of the police would open them. Good luck with that one.
Besides, they already can. The key is called a "brute force", and if they use it, yeah, they have to go up against the effort the householder put in to stopping brute force entry. If their "house" is a repurposed bomb shelter with six foot thick concrete walls, good luck to them.
rgb
Would the court grant more than merely a blessing? (Score:3)
So, is she proposing that the authorities have the tool / keys to do this, but must pinky swear not to use it without permission?
If they were in earnest about the need for a warrant / oversight, then they should have no reservation about agreeing for it to actually be impossible for the authorities to "pierce" communication without being first granted specific, targeted keys to do so. This would be a one-time expiring key pairing between the communications provider and the Court, which is handed to the authorities.
I suspect they would decline this solution, because it isn't a carte blanche opportunity to monitor at their own discretion.
Intercepted SMS (Score:3)
"The barbecue is set for September 22. Tell Ahmed to bring the burgers and Moe the chips."
Sir, it's some kind of code. Call up AT&T and find out what "burgers" stands for and what "chips" stand for. You'll need a warrant. Judge LeRoy is a dependable rubber stamp.
Comment removed (Score:3)
Let's godwin this (Score:3)
For being a jew she sure is a fucking nazi.
Teddy or Pipe Wrench (Score:2)
all you really have to do is either con the key out of your target or BEAT IT OUT
Re: (Score:3)
Don't give your cause a bad name by misrepresenting the 4th amendment. It asserts the right of people to be secure in their stuff against _unreasonable_ searches and seizures, and say that warrants are permissible with probable cause.
Whatever reasonable objections you have, this isn't one of them. The 4th doesn't protect anyone's stuff when the government has probable cause to search that particular stuff, including communications.
Re: (Score:3)
- C.S. Lewis
Re: (Score:3)
The path towards a police state justified by terrorism and the always reliable pedophilia. What surprises me most about this miserable waste of skin is that she's from supposed progressive California.
This is the EXACT definition of "progressive". More and more powerful government. In every area of *citizens* lives. Literally the only freedom that progressives acknowledge is abortion. Nothing else. I'm all for a woman's right to make that choice, but damn, it's not the be all and end all of liberty.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) after the San Bernadino shootings -- "Sensible gun laws work! We've proven it in California." link [clashdaily.com] She is apparently unaware of what state San Bernadino is in.
Representative Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) with the debt spiraling upwards at close to $1.25T per year and insurance premiums are jumping as much as 50% per year - "ObamaCare is lowering costs and the deficit." link [nrcc.org]
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) -- “Every month that we do not