Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Encryption Government Iphone Privacy Republicans Security Software The Courts United States Apple Your Rights Online

US Efforts To Regulate Encryption Have Been Flawed, Government Report Finds (theguardian.com) 110

An anonymous reader writes from a report via The Guardian: U.S. Republican congressional staff said in a report released Wednesday that previous efforts to regulate privacy technology were flawed and that lawmakers need to learn more about technology before trying to regulate it. The 25-page white paper is entitled Going Dark, Going Forward: A Primer on the Encryption Debate and it does not provide any solution to the encryption fight. However, it is notable for its criticism of other lawmakers who have tried to legislate their way out of the encryption debate. It also sets a new starting point for Congress as it mulls whether to legislate on encryption during the Clinton or Trump administration. "Lawmakers need to develop a far deeper understanding of this complex issue before they attempt a legislative fix," the committee staff wrote in their report. The committee calls for more dialogue on the topic and for more interviews with experts, even though they claim to have already held more than 100 such briefings, some of which are classified. The report says in the first line that public interest in encryption has surged once it was revealed that terrorists behind the Paris and San Bernardino attacks "used encrypted communications to evade detection." Congressman Ted Lieu is pushing the federal government to treat ransomware attacks on medical facilities as data breaches and require notifications of patients.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

US Efforts To Regulate Encryption Have Been Flawed, Government Report Finds

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 30, 2016 @09:06AM (#52418609)

    Stop insisting on unbreakable encryption. You're just helping terrorists and criminals while you hurt Americans. If you dorks didn't have anything illegal to hide, you wouldn't use unbreakable encryption. And no, I'm not worried about identity theft. I use Lifelock and, therefore, am immune from this.

    • Re: (Score:1, Offtopic)

      by INT_QRK ( 1043164 )
      I was debating with myself on whether to spend a "Funny" mod point...
      • by Anonymous Coward

        The only regulation needed for encryption is that encryption methods available to the general public NOT have any built in back doors. We REALLY DO NEED UNBREAKABLE ENCRYPTION, as in when a device has its data encrypted, too many failed tries to access that device or its data, totally deletes that data. Deletes it as in overwrites it with zeros, then again with random characters. To anyone but the owner (as in the person who bought and paid for the device), that device needs to be a black box that cannot

        • I'm pretty sure most anyone in government disagrees with this line of thought.

          Most individuals, however, don't.

        • by Salgak1 ( 20136 )

          Actually, back in the (the 1980s) we used portable hard drives, called "Data Transfer Unit Cartridges", or "DTUC", to hold navigational data in B-52 Bombers. No clue on the capacity, but when we pulled a bird off alert, we did EXACTLY that: Overwrite with zeros, then random characters. 10 cycles of this. At that point, the DTUC was considered clean enough of highly classified data, that it could be removed from the secure perimeter, and sent off to the Bomb/Nav shop.

          If it was good enough for SAC in 19

          • Wasn't there a US spy plane that had to do an emergency landing in mainland China ... about a decade ago ... where they reported having to do pretty much that while the pilots were lining up for an emergency landing.

            10 cycles of zeros-then-random might have been sensible in the 1980s with stepper motor head positioning and wide inter-track areas, but by the early 2000s the tighter head positioning using voice coils and servos and so on meant that a couple of cycles were considered adequate. (I'm trying to

    • Lifelock? Immune? Mod the parent to +5 funny.

    • Re:FUCK YOU DORKS (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Ihlosi ( 895663 ) on Thursday June 30, 2016 @10:01AM (#52418879)
      Stop insisting on unbreakable encryption

      No one wants unbreakable encryption. We just want encryption to work like copyright - it's completely breakable on a completely impractical timescale (heat death of the universe + 2 billion years should be ok).

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward

        You damn encryption fanatics. Copyright is only death + 75 years, and the copyright of large corporations is far more important than your personal information. So we should compromise, heat death of the universe + 10 years.

        Think of the children!

      • Careful there, you have to be more clear than that. Are you OK with encryption that can be broken by heat death of the Universe + t billion years for a Kardashev Type I, Type II, or Type III civilization? I'm not sure AES-256 will stand up to a sufficiently large Type III civilization with highly advanced quantum computers.

        • by Ihlosi ( 895663 )
          Are you OK with encryption that can be broken by heat death of the Universe + t billion years for a Kardashev Type I, Type II, or Type III civilization?

          Since even a Kardashev Type III civilization is subject to the heat death of the universe (and, hence, the second law of thermodynamics), I'm ok with that.

          My personal definition of godhood starts at immunity to the second law of thermodynamics, and if any such entity wants to read my email, it can go ahead.

          I'm not sure AES-256 will stand up to a suf

  • by RabidReindeer ( 2625839 ) on Thursday June 30, 2016 @09:07AM (#52418613)

    If legislators ever bothered to try and understand anything before passing laws about it, government as we know it would cease to exist.

    • Quid pro quo is as deep as it gets.

    • by pr0t0 ( 216378 ) on Thursday June 30, 2016 @09:37AM (#52418759)

      "lawmakers need to learn more about [insert topic] before trying to regulate it"

      I was going to type up a lengthy missive on how unsurprised, yet blind with rage I am about the above phrase. But I just do not care any more. I have no faith left in the U.S. government, and at my age, I will not waste the time on meaningless scorn. Congress can bicker back and forth on whether plants crave electrolytes all they want.

      Perhaps some very distant day, hundreds or thousands of years in the future, we (as a species) will have some system of government where experts in their field are the ones who decide how best to regulate that field, with appropriate checks and balances in place of course.

      • by PopeRatzo ( 965947 ) on Thursday June 30, 2016 @09:59AM (#52418867) Journal

        we (as a species) will have some system of government where experts in their field are the ones who decide how best to regulate that field

        That's what we have in the financial industry now. Almost all of our financial regulations have been written by people who make their living in the field.

        Don't assume that expertise means caring what's best for society. It just means you know what's best for you. Technocracy can be an express train to dystopia.

        • by bondsbw ( 888959 )

          But you left out the critical part:

          with appropriate checks and balances in place of course

          That would not include lobbyists who have any current or promised financial incentive to push for laws favoring their company or industry.

          • In other words, nobody who might be able to get employed in an industry can help regulate it? There doesn't need to be a promised financial incentive for someone to go from a regulatory body to industry. It can be implied, or even assumed. Should lobbyists be banned entirely, since they're probably paid by a company or an industry association?

            • Perhaps, but a total ban may be extreme and ultimately ineffective. One idea is to provide a formal and transparent venue for contact to occur between current industry representatives and government officials... in other words, no more schmoozing elected representatives with wine and food.

              However, I do believe government representatives should recuse themselves from voting or speaking to Congress on matters in which they hold financial interest.

        • And I was cognizant of that risk, which is why I put the "appropriate checks and balances" at the end.

          The financial industry is an excellent example of why subject matter experts cannot be the sole determinant in such things. In that case, it's more like self-regulation than perhaps any other. However, as I was typing that, I was thinking about scientists; who for all their empirical work and impartial judgement, are still just human beings as flawed as the rest of us. Motivations must always be a concern.

        • Don't assume that expertise means caring what's best for society. It just means you know what's best for you.

          It's more complicated than that, even. Sometimes expertise works against you by limiting your perspective. If you're an expert developer, it might predispose you to building applications that make sense to developers and are useful for developers, while having a very hard time making applications that make sense to regular people. You see a app that most people would find simple, elegant, and frustration-free, and you get annoyed at the lack of features (features that most people would find extraneous an

  • Cross-advertising (Score:5, Insightful)

    by LichtSpektren ( 4201985 ) on Thursday June 30, 2016 @09:08AM (#52418621)
    Please Slashdot editors, stop with the cross-story promotion. It makes sense if the two stories are directly related, not when the two stories hang in the same genre.
    • by Anonymous Coward

      Or, in this case, DIRECTLY FOLLOW ONE ANOTHER on the website.

  • FTA: (Score:3, Insightful)

    by rmdingler ( 1955220 ) on Thursday June 30, 2016 @09:11AM (#52418631) Journal

    Apple CEO Tim Cook, along with executives from Google and Facebook, have argued that if Washington starts ordering them to build universal key features into their encryption software, it will create vulnerabilities that both the “good guys” (western governments, in this case) and “bad guys” (other governments and hackers) can exploit.

    Sadly, the lines are a little more blurry than this.

    • by Thud457 ( 234763 ) on Thursday June 30, 2016 @09:24AM (#52418701) Homepage Journal
      Once the FBI started subverting TOR (developed by the Naval Research Lab to promote FREEDOM), hacking people's computers without warrents and demanding user data from ISPs without warrants, the US became a bad internet citizen and a de facto rogue state.
    • by Anonymous Coward

      When you're trying to convince someone to agree with you, don't call them a villain unless that's how they self-identify.

    • Re:FTA: (Score:5, Informative)

      by Jason Levine ( 196982 ) on Thursday June 30, 2016 @10:22AM (#52418957) Homepage

      They are more blurry than "Western Governments are good guys/other governments and hackers are bad guys", but the overall point is that even if you COULD trust all western governments to never abuse their encryption backdoor (a huge assumption), the mere presence of a backdoor would lead to hackers exploiting it. And, walking back the assumption, let's say you (for some reason) trust the current administration with an encryption backdoor. Do you trust the next one with it? What about the one after that? How long until an administration comes along that abuses the backdoor (whether Nixon-Whitewater level abuse or slowly encroaching on what is acceptable abuse)?

      • Re:FTA: (Score:4, Insightful)

        by nine-times ( 778537 ) <nine.times@gmail.com> on Thursday June 30, 2016 @12:42PM (#52419877) Homepage

        the mere presence of a backdoor would lead to hackers exploiting it.

        Well, it would lead to hackers exploiting the encryption used by regular, law abiding people. Criminals and terrorists could still encrypt things with other schemes that don't include a back door.

        • That's the other reason this debate is pointless. Even if the US government could, tomorrow, declare all non-backdoored encryption illegal AND every company complied immediately (a turn of events that would make me looking for airborne S. Domesticus), there would still be open-source, non-backdoored encryption hosted in other countries. How would the US force all websites in every country into backdooring all of their encryption? And why wouldn't any hypothetical terrorist use this non-backdoored encrypt

  • So does this mean that they will stop trying to demonize encryption now. Or are they going to look to explain key escrow to the general public and mandate that. I find that a lot of the general public doesn't understand encryption and believe it is possible to have crypto that can only be broken by the government. Then there is the comment, you don't know what kind of computers the NSA has so they can probably break it. I do wonder if the report mentions that they shouldn't announce their plans like they di
    • by matbury ( 3458347 ) on Thursday June 30, 2016 @05:00PM (#52422097) Homepage

      The Paris attackers didn't use encryption. They used unencrypted "burner" phones, which they changed frequently, and then during the attack, they took phones from their victims and used those.

      • I know that as does probably just about everyone on /. but do you remember how much of a deal the news [washingtonpost.com] media [thehill.com] made [cnn.com] about [thehill.com] the [breitbart.com] terrorists [washingtontimes.com] using [yahoo.com] encrypt during their coverage of the attacks. It now looks like since the initial frenzy is over with that and people have it in their mind that it was because of encryption officials were unable to stop the attacks the media come out stating that they used unencrypted communication but that gets a lot less if any air play or only a brief mention in a small article bu
        • I know that as does probably just about everyone on /. but do you remember how much of a deal the news [washingtonpost.com] media [thehill.com] made [cnn.com] about [thehill.com] the [breitbart.com] terrorists [washingtontimes.com] using [yahoo.com] encrypt during their coverage of the attacks. It now looks like since the initial frenzy is over with that and people have it in their mind that it was because of encryption officials were unable to stop the attacks the media come out stating that they used unencrypted communication but that gets a lot less if any air play or only a brief mention in a small article buried on the inside.

          It's almost as if they were all getting their stories from the same source... ;)

  • Wait, What? (Score:1, Insightful)

    by BlueStrat ( 756137 )

    U.S. Republican congressional staff said in a report released Wednesday that previous efforts to regulate privacy technology were flawed and that lawmakers need to learn more about technology before trying to regulate it.

    *Republicans* are creating and authorizing the publication of reports critical of government-mandated encryption 'backdoors'?

    We keep being lectured by those on the Left that the Democrats are the ones that protect the "regular Joe" and the Republicans are the ones that want to crush the rights/privacy of the "regular Joe".

    This is unpossible!

    Strat

    • Re:Wait, What? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Bob the Super Hamste ( 1152367 ) on Thursday June 30, 2016 @09:43AM (#52418797) Homepage
      Well it isn't as bad as I thought but it is biased in that it does have the "Something must be done" theme in it. The document could have been worse but it could have been a lot better. As someone involved in security and encryption it felt very patronizing to me but then I'm not the target audience. There is a lot of space dedicated to explaining the productive uses of encryption but then there is about the same explaining why it makes life difficult for law enforcement. Then there is a big section showing what restrictions other countries have or what laws governing encryption other countries have tried to pass. They still push the idea that encryption caused them problems in the Paris attack yet ignoring the fact that the mastermind of it was featured as pig fucker of the month in Daesh's monthly magazine. They also bring up the San Bernardino cellphone but fail to mention that the government at all levels screw the pooch at every turn there. Yes I actually did read it.
    • by Ihlosi ( 895663 )
      *Republicans* are creating and authorizing the publication of reports critical of government-mandated encryption 'backdoors'?

      Yes. Of course *Republicans* will be highly ciritical of government mandatated encryption backdoors, if "government" means "those Democrats!".

    • by Anonymous Coward

      previous efforts to regulate privacy technology were flawed and that lawmakers need to learn more about technology

      Translation: we need to spend yet even more tax money so that we can expand our power over the people yet again.

    • by swb ( 14022 )

      Hillary Clinton: "I want the FBI to have every tool possible to defeat terrorists and criminals, especially racist, homophobic domestic right wing groups which the FBI tells me are the most immediate threat to public safety. We cannot allow encryption to stand in the way of American civil rights and public safety."

      Donald Trump: "I want the FBI to have every tool possible to defeat terrorists and criminals, especially radical Islamic immigrant groups which the FBI tells me are the most immediate threat to

    • They're too busy raising fund for their next election. Their staff reads the bills and tell them which way to vote. They consider the voters retards and deserves every anal rape they dish out to us.

      If they can't be bother to read the bill they're vote on, do you honestly expect them to study the issues and author meaningful bills that actually does something useful for the voters (and not their largest campaign fund contributors) ? Hello?

  • Title (Score:4, Funny)

    by Yvan256 ( 722131 ) on Thursday June 30, 2016 @09:34AM (#52418753) Homepage Journal

    The 25-page white paper is entitled Going Dark, Going Forward: A Primer on the Encryption Debate and it does not provide any solution to the encryption fight.

    "Going Dark, Going Forward: A Primer on the Encryption Debate and it does not provide any solution to the encryption fight" is a bit long for a title, isn't it?

  • I'd like to... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by EmeraldBot ( 3513925 ) on Thursday June 30, 2016 @09:38AM (#52418765)

    Some perspective, people; we've had encryption in use for over 40 years, and the actual amount of people using it to escape prosecution is almost none. Furthermore, if we put in a backdoor, it's inevitably going to be discovered by the rest of the world, and we will wind up with a situation where anybody in the world can read traffic made by American citizens, but they can't read the rest of the worlds. How does it improve national security if the US's banking details are all in plaintext while the rest of the world's isn't? Not only doesn't it improve it, but it dramatically weakens it - if the US really winds up in a war against China or Russia or whatever, and they've figured out the secret, they can effectively spy on any data in the US, read any file. We all know there's no way people are going to upgrade after, so how exciting will it be when the entire infrastructure is easily hackable and no citizen's data will be secure?

    Second off, I'd like to point out this isn't going to yield us much benefit. If criminals can't communicate securely with computers, then they'll... use encryption anyway. If they constantly switch WiFi hot spots, use different computers and phones, only send brief messages, and use it for dead drops when they're not around, they have absolutely no possible risk, and the data remains unreadable anyways. And if even that is somehow, magically and impossibly, fixed, then they'll simply do it the old fashioned way; rely on (physical) coded messages, talk person to person, or use stenography or other measures to evade detection. They'll still successfully escape oversight, and it'll be even easier because now they'll be needles in a 300 million pound haystack.

    Finally, let's consider the kind of data they're after. They're probably going to want messages, personal videos, etc. from people - stuff that's actual communication. If the data is not stored on the phone, or the phone is destroyed, then... where is it? I know that I don't send the same email back and forth to a person for 30 days, and if neither of us have a copy, there'll be non-left anyways. Oh sure, maybe the server you say, but if we assume a criminal or spy willing to use advanced encryption, why exactly wouldn't they securely delete their messages after they've been read? We did it with burning papers, and once that message is gone, it's gone, encryption or not. Unless, of course, you propose to store every single message, video, and photograph that crosses US internet lines, and that is impossible with how much data there is. Also, how much crime is committed with just the internet? Law enforcement has access to criminal records, on seen evidence, bank records, security footage, witnesses, talking to family, and all manners of power; why would this hamper them? If the criminal is caught with his face bare on a security cam, we's convicted; if a spy blatantly and repeatedly does erratic things and snoops around, he's going to be caught also. Every country did it perfectly fine back in the 80's. Computers are (theoretically) a nice thing to have for this sort of purpose, but they don't contribute that much in the grand scheme. They simply make the inevitable a little quicker.

    In short, we have absolutely nothing to gain really, unless you want to go after the 2 or 3 people who used it, and we have the world to lose; people will lose confidence in our IT market, businesses will move to a place where they can store encrypted data legally, the US will become completely unsafe for sensitive records, the government can easily turn into an Orwellian tolitarian state, all of our information becomes accessible to an enemy in the event of a war, and everybody who's smart will find loopholes around this provision anyway. We are going to suffer if we ban encryption or require it to have a backdoor, we are going to suffer a lot, and if you've seen the results of humanity's past, irrational fear and hatred tend to produce pretty poor choices.

    • Re:I'd like to... (Score:5, Informative)

      by h4ck7h3p14n37 ( 926070 ) on Thursday June 30, 2016 @11:17AM (#52419207) Homepage

      Some perspective, people; we've had encryption in use for over 40 years, and the actual amount of people using it to escape prosecution is almost none.

      Encryption has been around for much longer than 40 years!

      "The earliest known text containing components of cryptography originates in the Egyptian town Menet Khufu on the tomb of nobleman Khnumhotep II nearly 4,000 years ago."
      -- "Past, Present, and Future Methods of Cryptography ", http://www.eng.utah.edu/~nmcdo... [utah.edu]

    • by Anonymous Coward

      talk person to person, or use stenography

      *steganography. Stenography is "the action or process of writing in shorthand or taking dictation."

    • Re:I'd like to... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by StormReaver ( 59959 ) on Thursday June 30, 2016 @12:29PM (#52419769)

      ...lots of reasoned arguments clipped...

      None of that matters. Not one bit. You are making the wrong arguments, regardless of how logical and well reasoned they are. It's just irrelevant.

      What matters is how you can push people's emotional buttons. The enemies of freedom (the FBI, CIA, GCHQ, etc.) are successfully pushing the "encryption equals terrorism" emotional lie onto an ignorant populace. Emotional lies trump reasoned truths every time.

      Emotional lies can be effectively countered with emotional truths, but cannot be countered with logical reasoning. Most people are not logical. For example, "The FBI's fight against freedom will expose your children to pedophiles" or, "GCHQ's war on privacy will make you a target of terrorists" will be more effective than debating within the TLAs' frameworks.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Below the article it says:

    Congressman Ted Lieu is pushing the federal government to treat ransomware attacks on medical facilities as data breaches and require notifications of patients.

    What has that got to do with this story? I believe that belongs to the previous one: https://yro.slashdot.org/story/16/06/30/0340220/congressman-wants-ransomware-attacks-to-trigger-breach-notifications. I think it's not the first misplacement I saw today. Something wrong with the content generato

  • by mu51c10rd ( 187182 ) on Thursday June 30, 2016 @09:45AM (#52418813)

    I've never understood why the restrictions on exporting encryption outside the US. That seems to operate under the premise that non-Americans are unable to develop their own cryptography...which is certainly not the case. Can anyone explain why the US government tried to govern something that is inherently ungovernable?

    • by jeff4747 ( 256583 ) on Thursday June 30, 2016 @10:41AM (#52419049)

      Because for a time, the US did have better encryption than other countries - DES was good back when it was new.

      That is no longer the case, but laws move much slower than technology.

    • If they just went back to declaring that encryption was a munition, then encryption would receive 2nd amendment protection! Then Charlton Heston could claim "you can have my passphrase when you pry it out of my cold dead hands."

      • Irrelevant. The export of PGP as printed documents of code, which were protected free speech under the first amendment blew that one out of the water. The fact that non-US nationals started putting effort into developing US-free encryption tools dismantled the flying wreckage into dust blowing in the wind.
  • by Anonymous Coward

    > "public interest in encryption has surged"

    Yup. But my gut feeling is that it hasn't been because

    > "terrorists behind the Paris and San Bernardino attacks "used encrypted communications to evade detection"

    since they mainly didn't, at least in any way which anyone locking their smartphone doesn't also use. Didn't this surge start with Snowden's revelations?

    I could very well be wrong. Remember that this is the same kind of public which, on the day after a referendum on leaving the EU, made the second m

  • by LordWabbit2 ( 2440804 ) on Thursday June 30, 2016 @10:00AM (#52418875)
    The Paris attackers did NOT use encryption!
    They used burner [arstechnica.com] phones.
    The TLA's just tried to use encryption as the reason why their spy machines didn't detect squat, and to try force new encryption laws down peoples throats.
  • I only read the introduction and the seven conclusions so far, but this actually reads like a document that recognizes both sides of the issue, privacy versus legitimate needs of law enforcement. While I strongly lean towards privacy should win every time and twice on Sunday and would love to see a report that recognizes the reality that trading a little privacy is like trying to be a little pregnant, I'm actually heartened by the level of genuine intelligence that seems to have gone into this report. It

  • Ya Think?!?!? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by QuietLagoon ( 813062 ) on Thursday June 30, 2016 @10:23AM (#52418965)
    ...lawmakers need to learn more about technology before trying to regulate it...
  • by seven of five ( 578993 ) on Thursday June 30, 2016 @10:33AM (#52419009)
    With congress members already struggling to understand basic science issues such as the age of the earth and AGW, something like cryptography lies largely and forever out of their grasp...
  • by Anonymous Coward

    No.
    The story here is that anything behind closed doors does not represent the will of the people, and ignorance is no excuse.
    Roll your own encryption, share it only with friends.
    Use it to pass encrypted copies of banned books, how-to-books, and amateur novels...
    Send these encrypted things to members of congress...
    Make then come and ASK for the keys.

    Then explain why they have to ask.

    • Do NOT roll your own encryption. Approximately nobody here has the expertise to come up with a really good cipher (this being Slashdot, I assume a few of us do). Use something standard, devised by people who really know what they're doing, and heavily tested. The security isn't in the cipher being obscure, it's about the key being unknown.

      Basically, cryptology is about secrecy compression. Take a large document you want secret, and encrypt it with AES-256. You've reduced the secrecy to eight bytes,

  • by bravecanadian ( 638315 ) on Thursday June 30, 2016 @11:48AM (#52419417)

    Good luck regulating math, morons.

  • by Shadow IT Ninja ( 3891909 ) on Thursday June 30, 2016 @12:40PM (#52419861)
    The link supporting the assertion that terrorists behind the Paris and San Bernardino attacks "used encrypted communications to evade detection." is not supported by the linked article. In the first place, the article is only about San Bernardino, not Paris. Second, it only says that authorities were trying to get access to encrypted data. In the San Bernardino case, there was encrypted data because the iPhone encrypts by default but there was no evidence released that the encrypted data contained anything relevant to the case. No article is linked about Paris. My understanding there was that French officials basically said that the terrorists must have encrypted there communication because they didn't detect anything. They offered no proof that encryption had been used. The assertion was like the one in San Bernardino - the suspects had used some encryption in the course of their regular use of technology [cnn.com], as most people do, but there was no definite statement that the encrypted communication had actually been used to plot attacks. Ars Technica reports no evidence of encryption being used [arstechnica.com].
  • Translation (Score:5, Insightful)

    by TsuruchiBrian ( 2731979 ) on Thursday June 30, 2016 @01:12PM (#52420093)

    lawmakers need to learn more about technology before trying to regulate it.

    Translation: We need to fire these idiots and elect lawmakers that know more about the things they intend to regulate

  • Dear Congress,

    Please make an attempt to understand the way the modern world works before you attempt to control it though legislation.
    ( Oh, while we're at it, please at least READ the GD legislation before voting on it. No more of the " We have to pass it to know what's in it BS )
    We would all sincerely appreciate it.

    Hugs and kisses-

    Teh Peoples

Think of it! With VLSI we can pack 100 ENIACs in 1 sq. cm.!

Working...