3 ms·

Including Apple's encryption in the list of reasons SV is going to be regulated is a strange decision. I certainly hope people don't look forward to regulation

Including Apple's encryption in the list of reasons SV is going to be regulated is a strange decision. I certainly hope people don't look forward to regulation that leads to LESS encryption.

giobox 9y ago
I think its a great one to include, and absolutely belongs in this article. Of course very few well-informed readers here will agree with the stance, but there's no escaping that politically this has been an enormous issue in the US and other countries like the UK. This really rose to the fore in the heated exchange between the FBI and Apple over access to the San Bernadino shooter's iPhone. If the FBI hadn't found an alternate route to the contents of that phone, it's very possible Apple would have been forced into a high stakes legal battle with the FBI, and subsequently could have triggered a draconian legislative response. The seriousness with which Tim Cook took the issue and his highly public responses at the time is testament to how badly (for encryption advocates) that could have turned out. The FBI are still very publicly criticizing Apple's stance recently too. There are no shortage of politicians out there who see things like mandated back doors for law enforcement as a great idea, and all it will take is the next San Bernadino style stand-off to throw this thing back into the public consciousness. I strongly believe proposals to regulate encryption on consumer devices will absolutely rear their ugly head again in the future. Encryption technology had a long history of legal regulation too, wasn't really until the Clinton administration that much of this was rolled back. > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crypto_Wars https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crypto_Wars
manofmanysmiles 9y ago
Does anyone have good way to come to an ethical understanding of whether unbreakable encryption is good or bad, and for whom? Every time this comes up, I am unable to simultaneously reconcile the the fact that backdoor are inevitably bad for almost everyone, while at the same time we, as people created a society to govern us, and the law enforcement of this society needs to do its job. To me this boils down to a fundamental, and for me unanswered question about the relationship between society i.e. social structures/government/etc and individuals, and how the society behaves like a living organism of its own, with its own motivations that are often in stark opposition to the motivations of its constituent pieces, and how to find a good path forward.

Including Apple's encryption in the list of reasons SV is going to be regulated is a strange decision. I certainly hope people don't look forward to regulation that leads to LESS encryption.

giobox 9y ago

I think its a great one to include, and absolutely belongs in this article. Of course very few well-informed readers here will agree with the stance, but there's no escaping that politically this has been an enormous issue in the US and other countries like the UK. This really rose to the fore in the heated exchange between the FBI and Apple over access to the San Bernadino shooter's iPhone. If the FBI hadn't found an alternate route to the contents of that phone, it's very possible Apple would have been forced into a high stakes legal battle with the FBI, and subsequently could have triggered a draconian legislative response. The seriousness with which Tim Cook took the issue and his highly public responses at the time is testament to how badly (for encryption advocates) that could have turned out. The FBI are still very publicly criticizing Apple's stance recently too. There are no shortage of politicians out there who see things like mandated back doors for law enforcement as a great idea, and all it will take is the next San Bernadino style stand-off to throw this thing back into the public consciousness. I strongly believe proposals to regulate encryption on consumer devices will absolutely rear their ugly head again in the future. Encryption technology had a long history of legal regulation too, wasn't really until the Clinton administration that much of this was rolled back. > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crypto_Wars https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crypto_Wars

manofmanysmiles 9y ago

Does anyone have good way to come to an ethical understanding of whether unbreakable encryption is good or bad, and for whom? Every time this comes up, I am unable to simultaneously reconcile the the fact that backdoor are inevitably bad for almost everyone, while at the same time we, as people created a society to govern us, and the law enforcement of this society needs to do its job. To me this boils down to a fundamental, and for me unanswered question about the relationship between society i.e. social structures/government/etc and individuals, and how the society behaves like a living organism of its own, with its own motivations that are often in stark opposition to the motivations of its constituent pieces, and how to find a good path forward.