Nevada Looks to Temporarily Restrain Meta from Using End-to-End Encryption
techdirt.com
techdirt.com
No, they just want the ability to spy without warrants, and the first step in that is making sure that spying is an option.
They want the ability to easier spy without warrants. They already spy without warrants through numerous mechanisms such as buying "private" data from 3rd party vendors, or by simply asking companies to provide the info themselves.
The claim that the law is "newish" / "from 2022" is flat-out wrong. The law in question is from 1999: https://www.leg.state.nv.us/Session/70th1999/bills/SB/SB485_...
And was most recently amended in 2001: https://www.leg.state.nv.us/Session/71st2001/bills/SB/SB551_...
I'm guessing the author saw the "2022" in the Justia page he linked and jumped to the conclusion of "oh this is when the legislation was introduced" without noticing the "Go to previous versions of this statute" drop-down or the fact that it literally says "(Added to NRS by 1999, 2704; A 2001, 2789)" at the bottom of the main text. Had the author followed the advice in the disclaimer to "[p]lease check official sources", he would've even seen (in said official source: https://www.leg.state.nv.us/NRS/NRS-205.html#NRS205Sec486) the hyperlinks to the exact additions from 1999 (https://www.leg.state.nv.us/Statutes/70th/Stats199916.html#S...) and 2001 (https://www.leg.state.nv.us/Statutes/71st/Stats200118.html#S...).
As much as I agree with the article's premise and find it exceedingly disappointing that my state would pull typical "only pedophiles and terrorists need end-to-end encryption" 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 else the author got completely wrong.