161–170 of 255 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Shouldn’t they come to me then and look into my phone instead of constantly looking into my messages on the server? I think the door is a great analogy.
and if you say "no", they're screwed. Whereas with a door, they can just push you out of the way and kick it down. I'm opposed to back doors, but the door analogy is a bad one.
If everyone uses encryption by default, those people can not that easily be picked out from the sea of information and targeted in other ways.
Freedom. Nobody, and least of all a government, should be able to decide what software you use. If their will stands above yours, you are a slave. Do you like slavery? Do you love yourself?
> If their will stands above yours, you are a slave. I'm not making an argument about encryption, but you know there are these things called "laws", right?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure this is a great analogy as yes, we permit people to have doors and locks but society also provides a mechanism for the government to lawfully get access to them. If the Police have a legit reason to access a property they go to court and get a warrent, and if they need to they'll kick the door in to get in. The current government requests to be able to access encrypted info with a warrent are an extensio…
"If the Police have a legit reason to access a property they go to court and get a warrent, and if they need to they'll kick the door in to get in." That's what currently takes, place, Government doesn't have the keys, they have to use force to get in, or other methods. (However there are physical limits to materials, so there is usually a way to break in) But, by having a special key that opens all the doors, anyone…
Politicians propose to forbid all buildings from having doors. After all "bad people/stuff etc." could lock the doors and hide behind them. Anyone arguing against that is obviously against safety. Counterpoints: - Do we currently have a big door problem? - Wait, don't doors also serve an important function? - Won't that make everybody much more insecure and basically do nothing against "bad stuff"? - What if I put a…
To counter that metaphor, what would the objection be to doors that lock, but the police are given a master key? There are a few obvious issues with centralisation and the possibility of bad actors on the police, but I’m not sure how persuasive it is against “ think of the children!! ”
Most places where child endangerment is/would happen is already encrypted, and it doesn't seem to be significantly hindering investigation. Beyond this, requiring a master key won't stop independent implementations that don't have such a thing.
It's like criminals are willing to break the law or something. Areas with strict gun control still have gun crimes, and people willing to endanger children would still use encryption without said back door.
Politicians propose to forbid all buildings from having doors. After all "bad people/stuff etc." could lock the doors and hide behind them. Anyone arguing against that is obviously against safety. Counterpoints: - Do we currently have a big door problem? - Wait, don't doors also serve an important function? - Won't that make everybody much more insecure and basically do nothing against "bad stuff"? - What if I put a…
I'm not sure this is a great analogy as yes, we permit people to have doors and locks but society also provides a mechanism for the government to lawfully get access to them. If the Police have a legit reason to access a property they go to court and get a warrent, and if they need to they'll kick the door in to get in. The current government requests to be able to access encrypted info with a warrent are an extensio…
It just can't do so casually, with minimal resources, with a low probability of detection like it can when those messages are sent in the clear. A targeted cyberattack authorized by a warrant is the digital equivalent of sending a SWAT team to kick in a door.
Currently the government uses E2EE to safe guard themselves, then the American people should also have access to it to safe guard themselves. If the government allows us to purchase guns for our safety, why not encryption? You going to say encryption kills more people then guns?
Plus E2EE isn't some super secret thing the government only has access to. Any one can create a E2EE platform and the government would be hard press to stop it. You might not be able to commercialize it, but it won't stop it from existing.
I believe arguing over if something should be legal/illegal is a pointless distraction. E2EE exist now embrace it or move on, but don't think banning it or making it illegal will some how make it disappear.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To counter that metaphor, what would the objection be to doors that lock, but the police are given a master key? There are a few obvious issues with centralisation and the possibility of bad actors on the police, but I’m not sure how persuasive it is against “ think of the children!! ”
Every power any government has ever been given has been abused. Best to limit any government as much as reasonable. Most places where child endangerment is/would happen is already encrypted, and it doesn't seem to be significantly hindering investigation. Beyond this, requiring a master key won't stop independent implementations that don't have such a thing. It's like criminals are willing to break the law or somethi…
Do you really think this is sellable to the average voter? That isn't a mainstream opinion.
> how do you respond when someone brings up concerns of E2EE platforms being used for child sexual abuse imagery or terrorism? These are only a tiny part of uses of encryption. Ask anyone if he would like to have his bank transfers, or his credit card credentials in plain text. End to end encryption allows the whole internet to act as a commerce platform. Encryption allows journalists and activists in strict, control…
I'd be surprised if most of the "child sex abuse" and "terrorism" traffic isn't already encrypted.
Politicians propose to forbid all buildings from having doors. After all "bad people/stuff etc." could lock the doors and hide behind them. Anyone arguing against that is obviously against safety. Counterpoints: - Do we currently have a big door problem? - Wait, don't doors also serve an important function? - Won't that make everybody much more insecure and basically do nothing against "bad stuff"? - What if I put a…
I'm not sure this is a great analogy as yes, we permit people to have doors and locks but society also provides a mechanism for the government to lawfully get access to them. If the Police have a legit reason to access a property they go to court and get a warrent, and if they need to they'll kick the door in to get in. The current government requests to be able to access encrypted info with a warrent are an extensio…
The key difference, to me, is that the current setup where the police can kick in the door to get in does not require subjects to make it any easier / more convenient for the police. If they have to raid and break in and get an approval, they will, but I am not required to arrange my locks or my furniture to help.
In fact, I am free to do the opposite. For example, I can put the things I do not want to share (private photos, detailed plans to become the world dictator, etc.), in an incinerator safe and try to destroy them if the doors are flying in. My 2c.