TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

Nevada Looks to Temporarily Restrain Meta from Using End-to-End Encryption

63 点作者 moose44大约 1 年前

2 条评论

olliej大约 1 年前
&quot;temporarily&quot;<p>No, they just want the ability to spy without warrants, and the first step in that is making sure that spying is an option.
评论 #39518224 未加载
yellowapple大约 1 年前
&gt; Apparently Nevada has a newish state law (from 2022) that makes it an additional crime to engage in “unlawful use of encryption.”<p>The claim that the law is &quot;newish&quot; &#x2F; &quot;from 2022&quot; is flat-out wrong. The law in question is from 1999: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.leg.state.nv.us&#x2F;Session&#x2F;70th1999&#x2F;bills&#x2F;SB&#x2F;SB485_EN.pdf" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.leg.state.nv.us&#x2F;Session&#x2F;70th1999&#x2F;bills&#x2F;SB&#x2F;SB485_...</a><p>And was most recently amended in 2001: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.leg.state.nv.us&#x2F;Session&#x2F;71st2001&#x2F;bills&#x2F;SB&#x2F;SB551_EN.pdf" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.leg.state.nv.us&#x2F;Session&#x2F;71st2001&#x2F;bills&#x2F;SB&#x2F;SB551_...</a><p>I&#x27;m guessing the author saw the &quot;2022&quot; in the Justia page he linked and jumped to the conclusion of &quot;oh this is when the legislation was introduced&quot; without noticing the &quot;Go to previous versions of this statute&quot; drop-down or the fact that it literally says &quot;(Added to NRS by 1999, 2704; A 2001, 2789)&quot; at the bottom of the main text. Had the author followed the advice in the disclaimer to &quot;[p]lease check official sources&quot;, he would&#x27;ve even seen (in said official source: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.leg.state.nv.us&#x2F;NRS&#x2F;NRS-205.html#NRS205Sec486" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.leg.state.nv.us&#x2F;NRS&#x2F;NRS-205.html#NRS205Sec486</a>) the hyperlinks to the exact additions from 1999 (<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.leg.state.nv.us&#x2F;Statutes&#x2F;70th&#x2F;Stats199916.html#Stats199916page2704" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.leg.state.nv.us&#x2F;Statutes&#x2F;70th&#x2F;Stats199916.html#S...</a>) and 2001 (<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.leg.state.nv.us&#x2F;Statutes&#x2F;71st&#x2F;Stats200118.html#Stats200118page2789" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.leg.state.nv.us&#x2F;Statutes&#x2F;71st&#x2F;Stats200118.html#S...</a>).<p>As much as I agree with the article&#x27;s premise and find it exceedingly disappointing that my state would pull typical &quot;only pedophiles and terrorists need end-to-end encryption&quot; shenanigans, it makes it unreasonably difficult to take said article seriously when the author gets basic stuff like this wrong; it makes me wonder what <i>else</i> the author got completely wrong.