3 ms·
If the point of a law is to circumvent encryption you shouldn't be surprised that it doesn't satisfy anyone who wants the encryption to be safe. Either the bac
by tjoff 8y ago
If the point of a law is to circumvent encryption you shouldn't be surprised that it doesn't satisfy anyone who wants the encryption to be safe.
Either the backdoor works and the system is bad. Or the backoor doesn't work and the system is illegal. At least if the law doesn't have a loophole.
So not sure why the article complains about the design whereas the intent and goal are the real issue. Seems like the design works as intended.
- maxerickson 8y agoConsider that the article may be written for people on the law enforcement/policy side of the debate.
- tjoff 8y agoNot sure what that changes. If I was law enforcement / pro backdoor I'd say that this article supports my view. The main complaint seems to be that Over time what seems like a “modest proposal” could lead us to world where GCHQ becomes the ultimate architect of Apple and Facebook’s communication systems. But that is of course inevitable if the proposal is to be successful. What other solution would the author propose?