3 ms·
That's just the nature of the beast. As long as strong encryption without a backdoor is physically possible, people will use it online regardless of legality. T
by sam0x17 7y ago
That's just the nature of the beast. As long as strong encryption without a backdoor is physically possible, people will use it online regardless of legality. The thought that we could regulate that effectively is laughable. Even if you take down every single project, it's already out there. Heck, it's built into Java, which is installed on "over 2 billion devices" or whatever... It's also built into pretty much every decent programming language out there (Rust, nim, go, crystal, others). Mirrors of old versions of those are everywhere, and tons of people already have them installed. This would be as pointless as deciding to censor all .pdf files. Hell even WinZip has AES built into it. This would require significantly more oppressive censorship and monitoring than even China is capable of.
And that's not even touching on SSH and HTTPS and GDPR complications.
If we don't laugh at and discredit the idiots pushing this, people are going to take them seriously and we will have to deal with the consequences.
Regarding companies (like facebook) that collude with the gov to bypass encryption with MITM snooping, we need to continue to expose them, and major players like Google and Apple need to actively disobey any orders from the gov, and send an army of lawyers at it, and I think that's what will happen.
- mistrial9 7y ago> laughable This is seriously wrong, and that word "laughable" is a key-word for others who share you larger assumptions. Let's assume that protocol enforcement is heaped upon those who can do nothing about it, not "laughing" techies with time and skills; .. until it is. Common access to network infrastructure is clearly being monitored and more and more requirements and restrictions are added each year, not less, in a dizzying number of ways. The ability to find a transaction from a "regulated IP address" used by those who do not have the skills or background to understand what is happening, only increases each year. This cavalier analysis is counter-productive to someone who wants to a) stay our of the security swamp and b) live life somewhat un-monitored with individual choices.
- sam0x17 7y agoYou're missing my point. People should be laughing at Barr, in his face, in his inner circle, every day for this. If we don't facilitate that on the outside, how the hell will it happen on the inside. So laughable as in a call to action, not laughable is in negligible.
- mrkeen 7y agoA government doesn't need to launch an all-out war on encryption to get its way. They only need to lean on relatively few people - the humans who live in the US and who run Facebook, Apple, etc. to put back-doors in their services. Or worse, they put back-doors in their services while denying that they have done so. The fact that strong encryption still exists will be of little use if it's not what the bulk of people actually use.
- sam0x17 7y agoThat is a legitimate concern, which is why we have to fight this.
- AJ007 7y agoThere is also the possibility that using less secure communications hardware and software could be exposing individuals and companies to criminal and civil liabilities due to other legal requirements. In the US this is already the situation with regards to handling classified information. Despite all of the rhetoric and public statements, the legal burden and actual enforcement seems to be going very much the opposite direction in the US and EU. There is good reason to suspect that the monitoring (and centralized censorship) infrastructure built up in other nations could end up producing the opposite desired goals in the long term.
- sam0x17 7y agoYes, I would absolutely love to see a GDPR suit against FB for allowing US gov to see some European person's data. Would be tremendous.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]