3 ms·
I generally agree, but intelligence groups have to first find the signal they want to monitor. Modern steganography techniques coupled with the free randomness
by goodplay 10y ago
I generally agree, but intelligence groups have to first find the signal they want to monitor. Modern steganography techniques coupled with the free randomness you get from the physical world gives you much to work with. And that's assuming common tech will be used.
Also, designing a secure general purpose messaging system is much harder that designing a system tailored for a specific use case.
Banning encryption by law is like demanding, loudly, that people not talk behind your back. Some will listen, and some will not. Only legitimate users and use cases will suffer.
- tormeh 10y agoWell, ISPs could implement a whitelist of communication methods. Maybe all content would have to be signed by a whitelist of apps before it's allowed through the network. Images would have to be signed by the camera app, so no steganography would be possible. From a business perspective it would be like going back to before the internet, but many of the services we associate with the internet like Facebook, Netflix etc. would survive.
- goodplay 10y agoWhat about using latency or throughput as a signal? What about tunneling data over seemingly normal pictures taken by said camera app? What about switching the "User Available online" indicators at a seemingly natural rate? What about all three at the same time? I assure you, steganography will always be possible. The only think a ban on encryption would do is hurt (badly) society, personal privacy, and those who want to follow the law.
- tormeh 10y agoSure, it would be a bit of a whack-a-mole, but in the end sending concealed messages would become extremely difficult. It's technically impossible to do perfectly, but as we all know, perfect is the enemy of good enough ;)