3 ms·

Encryption is a measure that prevents unauthorized parties from taking part of what is encrypted. If it fails that on such a basic level that a specific unautho

Encryption is a measure that prevents unauthorized parties from taking part of what is encrypted. If it fails that on such a basic level that a specific unauthorized party can trivially access it, it's not effective encryption. Whether or not it is effective, then, is just a matter of whether you agree that who ever holds the master key is authorized to access whatever it is that you encrypted. It's still not broken in any technical sense, but if I don't want a third party to read my data and they are still able to do so, it's a stretch to call it encryption.

harryh 11y ago
I don't think that's true at all. If you use gmail your data is pretty safe. Unless you tell me your password I'm going to have a pretty hard time reading your mail. It's encrypted at rest on Google's disks. It's encrypted in transmission over the internet. Google's network is protected with various forms of encryption and security that makes it hard for an unauthorized party to get into. But Google itself can access and read your email. It does so in an automated fashion to target ads at you. So is your gmail encrypted? Well...kind of. It's not binary.
- enraged_camel 11y ago
  The difference is that by using Gmail you agree with Google's terms of service, which state somewhere in them that they can target ads at you. With a government-held master key, there is no such contract.
  - harryh 11y ago
    Sure there is. We have a system of laws and courts that define the contract. And besides, the existence of a contract or not isn't really my point. My point was that encryption isn't an all or nothing situation. You don't either have completely ironclad security where you and only you can access your data or nothing at all. There are degrees of technical protection. That was my point. The black and white thinking about this issue is wrong.
    - boomlinde 11y ago
      > Sure there is. We have a system of laws and courts that define the contract. Isn't the point of discussing this that you actually don't have anything that defines that contract? In terms of the fourth amendment, it seems like there is quite the opposite contract in place already. Also, as an Apple product user outside the U.S., this supposed contract is not something that I ever agreed to. > And besides, the existence of a contract or not isn't really my point. My point was that encryption isn't an all or nothing situation. You don't either have completely ironclad security where you and only you can access your data or nothing at all. It is an all or nothing situation. That there is only one unauthorized party able to intercept my data using a back door doesn't change the fact that there is an unauthorized party able to intercept my data using a back door. Whether that is practical for you or not, again, depends on whether you consider the third back-dooring third party authorized. > There are degrees of technical protection. I think that maybe the discussion here comes from the fact that you are indeed talking about "technical protection" in general and not encryption specifically. The point of encryption is that only eligible parties can decode the data. If others can decode the data it's not really encrypted, as a matter of definition. For example, using Google as a mail provider may prove to be poor "technical protection", but the data is encrypted and the authorized parties are part of the terms of service. That the U.S. government can decode my encrypted data without permission may prove to be practical "technical protection", but in terms of encryption it really is a boolean situation.

harryh 11y ago

I don't think that's true at all. If you use gmail your data is pretty safe. Unless you tell me your password I'm going to have a pretty hard time reading your mail. It's encrypted at rest on Google's disks. It's encrypted in transmission over the internet. Google's network is protected with various forms of encryption and security that makes it hard for an unauthorized party to get into. But Google itself can access and read your email. It does so in an automated fashion to target ads at you. So is your gmail encrypted? Well...kind of. It's not binary.

enraged_camel 11y ago
The difference is that by using Gmail you agree with Google's terms of service, which state somewhere in them that they can target ads at you. With a government-held master key, there is no such contract.
- harryh 11y ago
  Sure there is. We have a system of laws and courts that define the contract. And besides, the existence of a contract or not isn't really my point. My point was that encryption isn't an all or nothing situation. You don't either have completely ironclad security where you and only you can access your data or nothing at all. There are degrees of technical protection. That was my point. The black and white thinking about this issue is wrong.
  - boomlinde 11y ago
    > Sure there is. We have a system of laws and courts that define the contract. Isn't the point of discussing this that you actually don't have anything that defines that contract? In terms of the fourth amendment, it seems like there is quite the opposite contract in place already. Also, as an Apple product user outside the U.S., this supposed contract is not something that I ever agreed to. > And besides, the existence of a contract or not isn't really my point. My point was that encryption isn't an all or nothing situation. You don't either have completely ironclad security where you and only you can access your data or nothing at all. It is an all or nothing situation. That there is only one unauthorized party able to intercept my data using a back door doesn't change the fact that there is an unauthorized party able to intercept my data using a back door. Whether that is practical for you or not, again, depends on whether you consider the third back-dooring third party authorized. > There are degrees of technical protection. I think that maybe the discussion here comes from the fact that you are indeed talking about "technical protection" in general and not encryption specifically. The point of encryption is that only eligible parties can decode the data. If others can decode the data it's not really encrypted, as a matter of definition. For example, using Google as a mail provider may prove to be poor "technical protection", but the data is encrypted and the authorized parties are part of the terms of service. That the U.S. government can decode my encrypted data without permission may prove to be practical "technical protection", but in terms of encryption it really is a boolean situation.