3 ms·
That sounds like a reasonable explanation for the reason behind the law, but vague wordings are still problematic, more so when it comes to any complex technolo
by mreome 8y ago
That sounds like a reasonable explanation for the reason behind the law, but vague wordings are still problematic, more so when it comes to any complex technology. You don't want a vague law that could be reinterpreted as making it illegal to provide end-to-end encryption for non-financial or other legally protected data (the argument being that if there is no need for it from a business or legal perspective, then it must be encouraging illegal activities as why else would it need to be encrypted).
- cf498 8y agoAbsolutely, and there have been calls to ban tor in the past, so its not unrealistic. I just dont think this is going to be that yet.
- mreome 8y agoBut you're giving a tool to the people who want to ban it. Just because it's not an exact fit doesn't mean that someone can't use it to achieve their specific goals. Plus vagueness like this can create chilling effects that limit the establishment of things like Tor, and further serve to solidify the view that things like Tor and End-to-End encrypted chat are inherently bad/illegal.