4 ms·
Even if this was law, it would be trivial to bypass. This type of law isn't just tyrannical, it's impossible to enforce. So, you're 100% absolutely right in say
by tuxxy 9y ago
Even if this was law, it would be trivial to bypass. This type of law isn't just tyrannical, it's impossible to enforce. So, you're 100% absolutely right in saying it would be selectively enforced.
Every tech founder needs to standup to these attempts of control.
- ebiester 9y agoMake the hypothetical law: "Use of encryption without a golden key is an automatic assumption of guilt." All it takes is a complicit supreme court.
- AstralStorm 9y agoAnd a change of constitution. Specifically, unreadable speech is still protected by 2nd Ammendment. Just make your cipher output speech (gibberish words, form of steganography) and you're set. As a reminder, this is how Zimmerman's PGP was exported. Printed in a book.
- schoen 9y agoMaybe you mean the first amendment? http://emoglen.law.columbia.edu/my_pubs/yu-encrypt.html http://emoglen.law.columbia.edu/my_pubs/yu-encrypt.html
- khedoros1 9y agoYou wouldn't need to change the constitution if the arbiter of what's constitutional (i.e. the Supreme Court) were complicit.
- jmull 9y agoI think that would lead to "crypto-encryption", where the fact of encryption is hidden. Encrypted data looks a lot like random noise, which might be a good basis for hiding it in regular traffic.
- erik_seaberg 9y agoThe term you're looking for is "steganography". Pretty fun to read about the existing work, including deniable filesystems.
- ataturk 9y agoThe Chinese sure enforce the hell out of it--"you have illegal crypto on your device!" <bullet to the head>