2 ms·
Can you elaborate as to what kind of position that would be? I don't see, for example, why an attempt to mandate Clipper chip style key escrow would be a sensib
by pcwalton 9y ago
Can you elaborate as to what kind of position that would be? I don't see, for example, why an attempt to mandate Clipper chip style key escrow would be a sensible policy.
- tptacek 9y agoIs it "not sensible" or is it just something you wouldn't like? If iMessage, WhatsApp, and SMS used escrowed encryption, they'd be in some way fundamentally insecure --- although still safer to use to send your bank account to your accountant than many "secure" encrypted messengers. You might respond by installing Signal (I sure would). They might not care; as long as the default enables investigations, they can probably make most of their cases.
- pcwalton 9y agoBy "mandating escrowed encryption" I mean something like the export controls of the '90s. That is, banning encryption in general without key escrow, or at least something like China's Cybersecurity Law of 2017, which allows the government to demand any product add decryption capabilities, effectively the same thing. > If iMessage, WhatsApp, and SMS used escrowed encryption, they'd be in some way fundamentally insecure…You might respond by installing Signal (I sure would). I'm not sure how lawmakers could meaningfully target iMessage and WhatsApp and not Signal with legislation. Edit: Oh, I see you mentioned default apps shipped with devices. Seems like a nightmare to word that law so that it targets iMessage and WhatsApp, but not, say, HTTPS. (Besides, does WhatsApp even ship with iOS?) I guess it could work in theory, but it seems like a bad idea to me.