4 ms·
Breaking encryption for the government is so furiously stupid it blows my mind every time it is suggested. Especially here, where people actually give the idea
by MrLeap 7y ago
Breaking encryption for the government is so furiously stupid it blows my mind every time it is suggested. Especially here, where people actually give the idea merit. It makes me miss oldschool /. where 100% of everyone was on the same page. Your point illustrates a huge reason as to why.
Backdooring stupid.crypt and forcing law abiding people to use it just insures that big badguys will use any other kind of encryption. All you've really accomplished is adding an extra charge of illegal encryption use at the expense of security for every human.
This potentially creates all sorts of pathologies. Is it illegal now for me not to update an old computer? If your backdoors are implemented in hardware, is it illegal to use old computers?
When people are against gun control, a common thread is "make guns illegal and only criminals will have guns." This argument has merit, but if we DID amend out #2 and make guns illegal, over time firearm proliferation would decrease.
Not so with encryption. Other, more free countries will constantly be developing better security methodologies, and reproducing those methods is effectively free. "Fuck up encryption, then only bad guys will have encryption" is a much stronger argument, because it's emphatically true.
The ignorant hubris of this is massively disheartening.
- coldpie 7y ago> Breaking encryption for the government is so furiously stupid it blows my mind every time it is suggested. Yeah. There's no distinction whatsoever between encryption with backdoors and no encryption at all. Imagine our current web with no encryption. Your logins are all effectively plaintext; your online shopping is effectively plaintext; your emails are all effectively plaintext. "Furiously stupid" is a good way to describe this whole proposition.
- thetrumanshow 7y ago> This argument has merit, but if we DID amend out #2 and make guns illegal, over time firearm proliferation would decrease. Hmm, then wouldn't some people just make their own firearms, just as you are describing with encryption, right?
- jki275 7y agoMany people do that already, perfectly legally. Certainly some percentage would choose not to follow laws banning them.
- QuotedForTruth 7y agoSome people would, yes. Especially rudimentary single shot weapons. However, its much harder to make a reliable gun than it is to make reliable tough encryption. There are designs available for both and there always will be, illegal or not. But making a gun is manufacturing whereas using encryption would just require installing some software. Trivial.
- craftinator 7y agoGiven that I have many, many crypto libraries in many many devices, some of which are heavily modified, chances of me even being able to replace those with broken crypto libraries is like... 0. Many people are in a similar situation, so I don't understand how we could even comply with a law like that if we wanted to (which we don't). So yeah, not only trivial to retain unbroken crypto, but nearly impossible to get rid of it.
- salawat 7y agoI want to point out, that manufacturing a gun is not "non-trivial". Given blueprints, (publicly available) or a template and accurate enough measures, a lathe, and a mill, anyone can make a firearm or parts for one in their garage. Is there reading involved? Yes. But any argument you make w.r.t. The futility of illegalizing encryption is immediately portable to firearms manufacture.
- pokeymcsnatch 7y agoI mean... manufacturing a working modern firearm in their garage is probably much more achievable to the general population than rolling out any kind of encryption software. Anyone with some basic hands-on competency can make a gun.
- thomastjeffery 7y ago> When people are against gun control, a common thread is "make guns illegal and only criminals will have guns." This argument has merit, but if we DID amend out #2 and make guns illegal, over time firearm proliferation would decrease. Even if that is true, "decrease" is not remotely equivalent to "eliminate". The problem is that as law-abiding citizens, and those who have their weapons forcibly taken by law enforcement are left completely unable to defend themselves; while criminals are not completely unable to acquire firearms.