131–140 of 394 posts
All they need to do is to pressure Apple and Google to keep some backdoors open, which is more than realistic, as Snowden's revelations have shown a couple of years ago.
Best ban everything that can be misused by terrorists... cars, knives, encrypted messaging.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I strongly believe that tools are ethically neutral. Well, that's a very evasive argument in my opinion. It's absolutely true that objects are neutral, but you can't make a blanket argument with topics like these. That argument has been made lots of times by many (including me). But it eventually breaks down. You can't give a child a gun and when the kid shoots someone say it was the kid's fault. Whose fault is it?…
I always thought that putting the blame on actual agents instead of stuff is the direct opposite of being evasive. You rightly said that I will answer that it was the adults fault. The bad act done with the weapon was giving it to a child, not the childs shooting someone. It gets clearer if the adult hands the weapon to a monkey or a randomized shooting machine. All three scenarios change nothing in regard to the mor…
With their utterly poor understanding of encryption and the harms of compromising it, people in governments who want to do so might as well be monkeys.
By providing backdoored encryption products, we would as you put it be handing out randomized shooting machines to monkeys.
It's an incredibly foolish thing for a minister to suggest. She demonstrates a complete lack of understanding on the subject and has commited political seppuku. Has she never read Orwell, Huxley, seen articles about tyrannical governments or even heard about the reasons the US constitution was drawn up?
has commited political seppuku Since the current prime minister supports her, I doubt it. It's an absurd position, but not without support in the current administration, just like her outspoken views on immigration.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How do they want to prevent someone from creating his own end-to-end encryption app? That's not an issue. Writing solid encryption software is very difficult on its own. You will hear "do not roll your own crypto" all the time from security experts. We don't live in a James Bond universe and it's beyond the reach of terrorist organisations.
You don't have to roll your own crypto to create an own end-to-end encryption app. You can use existing crypto. Writing a user interface around it is not so difficult. Beyound the reach of the terrorist organisations? We have already seen pretty sophisticated operations by relatively small crime organizations (like exploiting pseudorandom generators in casino slot machines). There's an established black market for ex…
Plus, they don't have to write it. They could just 'pivot' from an existing open source messenger.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Of course, we need to make sure it is used for anti-terrorism only. See that's the problem everyone is talking about. The thing, is, turns out you can't. That's was the ENTIRE point of the Snowden revelations. No sane person is okay with terrorism, but at what point are you going to stop relinquishing your rights? First, texts with Whatsapp. Then your phone calls. Then your bags and notes when you go through airpor…
One solution in my mind is the source code of the monitoring software must be reviewed by independent and trusted software engineers/experts.
Now consider the cost of such 'solution'. Free speech gets redefined, most of the people get divided into informants,opportunists, naive state suckers and silent fragmented opposition. Is that kind of security and police state an acceptable cost? For preventing small number of violent deaths each year?
There are much bigger problems in Western societies than a bunch of lunatics killing small number of people, but those can't be used so easily to make a power grab.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
From [1], linked elsewhere in this discussion, and referring to a failed plot in India: "The Hindi-speaking handler guiding the men in Hyderabad also insisted on using a kaleidoscope of encrypted messaging applications, with Mr. Yazdani instructed to hop between apps so that even if one message history was discovered and cracked, it would reveal only a portion of their handiwork." "the handler taught Mr. Yazdani how…
"Even if the British government is successful with WhatsApp, can they do much against free, open source tools?" Why would they care about open source tools and niche use of encryption? Of course they don't. They are after mass surveillance and use fear of terrorism to push for it. It's very logical of them.
Is it technically feasible to have a back door and still be `end to end` encrypted ?
If I have to choose one from end-to-end encryption and security, I will choose security. I don't mind my WhatsApp chats are scanned by police's software, if it can reduce terrorism. Of course, we need to make sure it is used for anti-terrorism only. Update: One solution of 'make sure' is the source code of the monitoring software must be reviewed by independent and trusted software engineers/experts. PS. Downvoting m…
Two questions for you.
>One solution of 'make sure' is the source code of the monitoring software must be reviewed by independent and trusted software engineers/experts.
What does that help with? (Because trusted expert aren't perfect, right?)
And second question, what if the police and government are evil, then how does your plan help?