71–80 of 94 posts
The right to bear arms should cover encryption.
Might make an interesting constitutional rights case before the supreme court.
You can't make 'deals' with mathematics. As you can't make 'deals' with physics.
You can make deals with the companies that run app stores, however, and that’s the only tool the government needs in order to crush mass-adoption of encryption. I wish that Google and Apple would both recognize the threat that their business model poses to our freedom.
It’s the fact that the rest of us haven’t solved the problems of creating an open but also trustable and usable alternative.
I am amused by the fact the country where guns are legal and used by many bad people doesn't ban it. But they are trying to ban encryption used by every people that used internet. What a time!
I find three things about the encryption debate really weird. #1 Split brain The "same" government that gave us Tor (onion routing) wants to take it away. So at least some of the players understand the practical need for encryption. I'd rather those pro and con insiders fight it out, instead of fighting by proxy thru us citizens and consumers. #2 Fishing expeditions What possible value does unlocking, decryption have…
This is probably why "same" is in quotes, but it's clear that this is higher-up political players wanting more power to spy on the people in the name law enforcement - tor came from the military who made the tech to fix an actual problem they had (encrypted communication).
I am amused by the fact the country where guns are legal and used by many bad people doesn't ban it. But they are trying to ban encryption used by every people that used internet. What a time!
Good comparison! One is viewed as a tool for people to protect themselves and their families, while the other is viewed as a tool for bad people to hurt other people and their families.
It is comparatively harder for people to build a mental model of how encryption stops an unseen hacker accessing their data, and obviously most people value their life more than their data.
The difference in threat models applicable to end-to-end encryption versus hop-by-hop encryption is even more subtle, allowing disingenuous politicians to claim to support encryption while simultaneously weakening it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Allow me to put some words in Barr's mouth for you: "I work in law enforcement, and I am uncomfortable with the idea that the public might have effective tools to communicate privately. But I can't say that directly because then people who aren't paying attention will be upset. So instead I'll be a bit confused about what my point is and draw some distinctions that don't make sense" There is a very compelling case th…
> That case is complicated and takes several pages to explain Then we've reached a crisis point in our moral development, because that statement had been axiomatic since the founding of this country. "That the individual shall have full protection in person and in property is a principle as old as the common law." [1] [1] https://www.cs.cornell.edu/~shmat/courses/cs5436/warren-bran...
I find three things about the encryption debate really weird. #1 Split brain The "same" government that gave us Tor (onion routing) wants to take it away. So at least some of the players understand the practical need for encryption. I'd rather those pro and con insiders fight it out, instead of fighting by proxy thru us citizens and consumers. #2 Fishing expeditions What possible value does unlocking, decryption have…
For example, the cleartext has evidence of a crime, and law enforcement needs a way to access that info.
> backdoors
Responsibly built lawful access doesn't necessarily use backdoors or flaws, but rather 3rd party access.
You can't make 'deals' with mathematics. As you can't make 'deals' with physics.
For a small percentage of users with the means and motivation, this may be true, but "making a deal with math/science" likely isn't the goal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Laws like that make me want to kiss the Bill of Rights every morning here in the US.
It really is positively Orwellian. We've already seen many examples of how pwople's phone data has been used in prosecutions. How long before someone is taken to court for an un-PC remark which they made in the [supposed] privacy of their own home, but which was then picked up by their Alexa, transcribed at Amazon HQ and then reported to the authorities as a "hate crime"? I know using the phrase "virtue signalling" t…
Perhaps because it is an unfalsifiable claim. If someone does something that they think is good, and someone else notices, were they "virtue signalling"? In the case of public figures, especially legislators, many of their actions are broadcast to the public, so condemning "virtue signalling" is like condemning virtue itself, or merely stating that you disagree on which acts are virtuous (as is expected in a society where we are free to disagree).
> legislators are falling over themselves to draft ever more idiotic laws intended to show how much more "liberal" and "progressive" they are than the next guy.
I imagine that legislators think "Violent people often have a history of saying bigoted things, but none of my friends say things that I think are bigoted, so locking up the people who say bigoted things will only have a positive outcome on society." Unfortunately there are enough people who can't imagine any bad consequences of such a law (even to themselves, eventually) that there is a genuine democratic mandate for it in some places.
I find three things about the encryption debate really weird. #1 Split brain The "same" government that gave us Tor (onion routing) wants to take it away. So at least some of the players understand the practical need for encryption. I'd rather those pro and con insiders fight it out, instead of fighting by proxy thru us citizens and consumers. #2 Fishing expeditions What possible value does unlocking, decryption have…