2 ms·

There seem to be a valid arguments for obscuring communications in special cases (tactical, investigative) and in general (privacy, safety) but the latter shoul

There seem to be a valid arguments for obscuring communications in special cases (tactical, investigative) and in general (privacy, safety) but the latter should be accessible to transparency advocates (reporters). You solve this with 2 encrypted channels, one for general use which has broader access, and the other more confidential. It sounds like law enforcement is already using a tiered system (unencrypted and encrypted) so this is not an undue burden for them. Then the issue is who is granted access? Anybody with a "press pass"?

whatshisface 8y ago
>You solve this with 2 encrypted channels, one for general use which has broader access, and the other more confidential. Anyone who is trying to do something illicit (i.e. anyone who is involved in creating a newsworthy situation) is just going to use the encrypted channel. The basic problem with "tactical secrets" is that they make you more effective against your adversaries whoever they are. Sure, when the communicators are good then they only have evil adversaries, but if a user of the tactical system ever does something wrong then their adversaries become you and me.