3 ms·

No, I didn't know that. Thanks to the US Navy. I just expressed my personal perception. I see politicians talking about, that the government should be able to

No, I didn't know that. Thanks to the US Navy. I just expressed my personal perception. I see politicians talking about, that the government should be able to decipher whatsapp etc. They probably don't like tor either.

openasocket 9y ago
I wouldn't worry about it too much. I've yet to see any US politician make a serious case for making non-backdoored encryption illegal, or banning Tor. A couple people have mentioned the idea, but no one's proposed legislation or anything like that.
- jackewiehose 9y ago
  I'm not so worried and I wasn't even thinking about the US. My government (Germany) has the same leading politicians who think like that. And I wouldn't underestimate the media influence of other countries, where tor might even be illegal (they all want to shape the world we're living in)
- colejohnson66 9y ago
  Back during the whole Apple v. FBI thing last year: A New York lawmaker proposed mandating backdoors or face a $2,500 fine per device.[0 §1(C)] Senators Burr (R-NC) and Feinstein (D-CA) tried to introduce the "Compliance with Court Orders Act of 2016".[1 §3] Thankfully, neither made it anywhere, but the fact that many politicians are so clueless about modern technology is scary. [0]: https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2015/a8093 https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2015/a8093 [1]: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2797124/Burr-Feinstein-Encryption-Bill-Discussion-Draft.pdf https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2797124/Burr-Fein...
  - openasocket 9y ago
    A few people have made proposals, though nothing has been taken seriously. The first one was a NY state proposal that never got out of committee. The second is weird. It seems to be a draft of a bill, I don't know if they actually proposed this in committee. And it's odd. It requires that companies must provide data to law enforcement with a valid court order. Which is redundant: of course if law enforcement has a court order for a company to provide data they have to provide it, unless they can contest the court order. The uses the phrase "make data intelligible" which reading further seems to mean you have to decrypt the data. So it looks like it's meant to require companies to be able to decrypt any of their secure systems with a valid court order, hence requiring a backdoor. But Section 3.(b) says "Nothing in this Act may be construed to authorize any government officer to require or prohibit any specific design or operating system to be adopted by any covered entity." That seems to clearly state this Act can't require a company to put a backdoor in their system. It's really an odd little document.

openasocket 9y ago

I wouldn't worry about it too much. I've yet to see any US politician make a serious case for making non-backdoored encryption illegal, or banning Tor. A couple people have mentioned the idea, but no one's proposed legislation or anything like that.

jackewiehose 9y ago
I'm not so worried and I wasn't even thinking about the US. My government (Germany) has the same leading politicians who think like that. And I wouldn't underestimate the media influence of other countries, where tor might even be illegal (they all want to shape the world we're living in)
colejohnson66 9y ago
Back during the whole Apple v. FBI thing last year: A New York lawmaker proposed mandating backdoors or face a $2,500 fine per device.[0 §1(C)] Senators Burr (R-NC) and Feinstein (D-CA) tried to introduce the "Compliance with Court Orders Act of 2016".[1 §3] Thankfully, neither made it anywhere, but the fact that many politicians are so clueless about modern technology is scary. [0]: https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2015/a8093 https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2015/a8093 [1]: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2797124/Burr-Feinstein-Encryption-Bill-Discussion-Draft.pdf https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2797124/Burr-Fein...
- openasocket 9y ago
  A few people have made proposals, though nothing has been taken seriously. The first one was a NY state proposal that never got out of committee. The second is weird. It seems to be a draft of a bill, I don't know if they actually proposed this in committee. And it's odd. It requires that companies must provide data to law enforcement with a valid court order. Which is redundant: of course if law enforcement has a court order for a company to provide data they have to provide it, unless they can contest the court order. The uses the phrase "make data intelligible" which reading further seems to mean you have to decrypt the data. So it looks like it's meant to require companies to be able to decrypt any of their secure systems with a valid court order, hence requiring a backdoor. But Section 3.(b) says "Nothing in this Act may be construed to authorize any government officer to require or prohibit any specific design or operating system to be adopted by any covered entity." That seems to clearly state this Act can't require a company to put a backdoor in their system. It's really an odd little document.