61–70 of 139 posts
It isn't just our privacy at issue. With more and more critical infrastructure on the internet, having unbreakable encryption is a major national economic and national security requirement. It's unrealistic to think that if there is a means for access by the government, that foreign enemies and criminal organizations won't be able to access it, too, and cause havoc.
Just think of the outrage if the government required master keys to everyone's homes? I know there is a difference, but it's not a huge leap to compare the two. We don't want the government to have such easy access to our homes because we can't trust every government employee not to abuse it. I think the same goes here. No mater what safe guards you put in place it's a scary thought that you simply can't keep the gov…
Disclaimer: I agree with you but I always struggle to convince people that this line of reasoning makes sense. The government can already enter anybody's home upon receiving a warrant to do so. If you don't let them in, they can bust through a door or tear down a wall. We trust the government not to do this without court oversight. We trust courts to provide good and honest oversight. It is far from a perfect system,…
That is a lot more out in the open than a "back door". When the government bashes through the door at least it's in plain site and the house owner knows it's happening. But with encryption how would you know if the government has used their access?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hey, so you could write an even more credible letter :) Also, data does have "weight". The more data that you move, the more obvious the movement is. And the more you obfuscate the connection, the less bandwidth you have. But yes, Pelosi is clueless.
It's that it's mentioned 3 times within like 2 screenfuls that I'm poking fun at.
Just think of the outrage if the government required master keys to everyone's homes? I know there is a difference, but it's not a huge leap to compare the two. We don't want the government to have such easy access to our homes because we can't trust every government employee not to abuse it. I think the same goes here. No mater what safe guards you put in place it's a scary thought that you simply can't keep the gov…
Not to mention the chance that a buearocrat loses their copy of the master key, or has it stolen or secretly copied, and before you know it thousands of criminals have access to every home in the country. After the damage is done, we go through a large expense to re-key every house with new locks and the process continues. I think it's a good analogy.
https://www.wired.com/2015/09/lockpickers-3-d-print-tsa-lugg...
The irony here is that simple one-time-pad solutions (OTP) will continue to be available to securely encrypt the sort of messaging that's of use to terrorists (relatively short infrequent messages), instead it's the general communications (including for banking) that the rest of us perform online that will be made vulnerable. You don't even have to program or use a computer to create these OTP solutions, for limited…
Even more importantly, it's a power grab of the powerful (which mostly translates into "the rich", and vice versa) aiming to further dominate and manipulate the remaining population ("the 99%") in order to secure and increase their dominant situation.
https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2017/03/new_paper_on_...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You could have made that criticism in a more kind tone. As a researcher on interacting with strangers on the internet, I'd expect you to be more cautious that your comments aren't accidentally read in a negative light.
I figured the joke would be obvious to anyone read the article.... wasn't meant to be negative or mean.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's a terrible example. Encryption wasn't mainstream at all back then and, more crucially, digital surveillance was still in its infancy. The most popular chat app in the world right now implements full E2E encryption. Go back 10 years and having a "chat" consisted of sending your friends SMS messages.
Exactly - and yet most criminals were happy to use that insecure and broken SMS. I'd love to see a study on the proportion of criminals that even know what encryption is. I expect it to be extremely low.
I think you're gravely underestimating the intelligence range and tech knowledge of 'criminals'.
The irony here is that simple one-time-pad solutions (OTP) will continue to be available to securely encrypt the sort of messaging that's of use to terrorists (relatively short infrequent messages), instead it's the general communications (including for banking) that the rest of us perform online that will be made vulnerable. You don't even have to program or use a computer to create these OTP solutions, for limited…
It's going to be no different for "crypto" solutions.
*Part of the FBI's job was to harrass anyone they considered a dissident or counter to their view of what US citizen should be or how they should behave. I doubt they changed at all. It's already documented and well known one of their favorite tactics was to break into people's homes while they're sleeping, or away, move things around... mess with their belongings or persons, etc... Expect it to be the same for crypto solutions "post quantum", if not already "pre quantum".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Disclaimer: I agree with you but I always struggle to convince people that this line of reasoning makes sense. The government can already enter anybody's home upon receiving a warrant to do so. If you don't let them in, they can bust through a door or tear down a wall. We trust the government not to do this without court oversight. We trust courts to provide good and honest oversight. It is far from a perfect system,…
Personally I think you can make it a crime not to produce a key if a warrant has been issued to search what ever you've encrypted. That is a lot more out in the open than a "back door". When the government bashes through the door at least it's in plain site and the house owner knows it's happening. But with encryption how would you know if the government has used their access?
Personally, I find that suggestion repugnant.