3 ms·
Actually, banning something doesn't mean to make it impossible, but to declare it illegal. Hypothetically, they (actually, we, as governments are just represen
by pif 10y ago
Actually, banning something doesn't mean to make it impossible, but to declare it illegal.
Hypothetically, they (actually, we, as governments are just representative of the voters) can ban encryption. Which means that any communication with no signal naturally emerging from noise is suspicious, thus they/we can ask you to justify yourself and keep you locked until you demonstrate that what you were hiding doesn't represent a threat for the community. And then give you a fine you anyway, so next time you'll think twice before breaking the law.
PS: it's not "you" you, it's "you" in general :-)
- ragebol 10y agoWith steganography [0], you can send encrypted messages embedded in images. Sending normal looking pictures is not suspicious (at least currently, for some definition of normal). [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steganography https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steganography
- pif 10y agoYes, you can. But if encryption is illegal, than steganography is illegal, too. Which means that big companies looking for advertisement money will not struggle to offer you an out-of-the-box solution. And this will make a huge difference in itself - I'll let anyone judge whether she considers such a difference good and worth the hassle.