3 ms·
We can have a little test - let's put backdoors on all of law enforcement's encryption usage and see how long it stays safe. I really don't know if people like
by typenil 7y ago
We can have a little test - let's put backdoors on all of law enforcement's encryption usage and see how long it stays safe.
I really don't know if people like Barr are arguing in good faith. But then I try to assume incompetence first and malice second.
- cr0sh 7y agoIf you know anything about Barr's long background, you'll know he is not "arguing in good faith".
- cmurf 7y agoExcept we have actual history to look at in Barr's case, Iran-Contra. I absolutely consider this malice first and incompetence second. That malice is classism, people are not equal, some people are inherently better people, and they have more money. Everything is a product. And wealthy people can buy more of that product than others. This is an attempt to make sure ordinary people cannot have privacy, cannot be protected from either each other, other governments or this government, but wealthy people will continue to be able to buy that protection one way or another. It's a feudalist's proposition. You do not understand the motives without understanding the underlying ideologies. Not everyone can be a lord over their own data - it's a fact. Your data, peasant, is not your data! It belongs to your lord. And who the lord is case by case, it could be the government, it could be a particular corporation or a trade group of them.
- geggam 7y agoNot sure why this is downvoted. After spending several decades on earth you start to see how govts are designed to protect the wealthy
- coldcode 7y agoLets put backdoors in politician's communications first that anyone can hack. If it goes well then we will support it.
- lonelappde 7y agoThis already happened. NSA/Booz Allen had a back door and Snowden exploited it. The Embassy had a back door and Manning exploited it.