3 ms·
I think the most realistic anti-encryption legislation would be to ban a vendor from shipping a device with encryption enabled by default. If they were to prov
by derekp7 11y ago
I think the most realistic anti-encryption legislation would be to ban a vendor from shipping a device with encryption enabled by default. If they were to provide an api to plug in a third party encryption module, then most people would probably leave the phone in the default settings. Which would return things to the previous status quo -- most devices would be searchable, and only people who new what they were doing (including a subset of "bad" people) would have encrypted devices.
Note: I'm not endorsing this, but I do believe it would satisfy the governments.
- cmurf 11y agoI doubt it would satisfy them, if the language of the bill, and the arguments being used thus far, is a valid indication. What they want is the ability to decrypt, and to get that means compelling companies to enduring cryptographic key escrow service, which law enforcement can use a subpoena to have Apple, Google, Microsoft, etc use to turn over plain text. So far this is "data at rest" request. It's for data on the phone. It's not for data in motion which is another technology that PFS makes rather difficult to impractical to setup key escrowing for, that's sorta the point. But then, the basebands are all proprietary and probably compromised by state (nations) actors.