4 ms·
> Are they going to outlaw encryption libraries? Yes. Absolutely. That's the only logical endgame.
by Simon_says 7y ago
> Are they going to outlaw encryption libraries?
Yes. Absolutely. That's the only logical endgame.
- verizonuser 7y agoWhat indication is there of this?
- naniwaduni 7y agoThere is no other endgame in which this is pointful.
- andrewflnr 7y agoYou're assuming the people making these rules actually understand encryption, which is doubtful at best.
- molmalo 7y agoIn many cases, (In my country for sure, and I bet this is common elsewhere) members of the legislative branch are approached by people from the intelligence community, who hand them the drafts for stuff they 'need'. And you can bet those people do understand encryption.
- justforyou 7y agoThey might understand encryprion, but that does not mean they are trustworthy nor truthful...
- merpnderp 7y agoNot possible in the US unless the Supreme Court stops giving a crap about the first amendment. Incredibly unlikely no matter how unpopular free speech might become.
- GordonS 7y agoOh, as well as the Clipper debacle, in the 90s I seem to recall there was a big push towards forced key escrow, on both sides of the pond.
- merpnderp 7y agoThe US government gave up the Clipper chip laws before even trying to take it to the Supreme Court as it was such an obvious loser.
- blackflame7000 7y agoIf congress and the president decide they want to increase the SC to 99 justices and add and additional 90 of their choosing then that's when the US Constitution officially dies but it can be done according to the law.
- OpieCunningham 7y agoWhat’s the difference between 9 of their choosing and 99 of their choosing?
- Mirioron 7y agoIt's easier to have public scrutiny on 9 justices than 99. There isn't enough time for the media or for people's memories to constantly remember to be angry at a few dozen people.
- clinta 7y agoIt's just a hyperbole for packing the court. Allowing one president to appoint >50% of the justices so that the court always rules in their favor instead of waiting for seats to be vacated and re-filled.
- scarejunba 7y agoYou have to kill some of them to put the others in place. If you add 90 slots you can just fill the new 90 slots with your guys. That’s the theory of his statement.
- MarcScott 7y agoI've said this before, but you can't outlaw the maths. There's nothing stopping anyone from rolling their own encryption, using well documented algorithms. You'd need to literally outlaw Wikipedia. Hell, even one-time-pads could still be used by truly motivated bad actors that wanted to communicate securely.
- shantly 7y agoThey can make it so if they spot you using it (for other than communication with approved banks and retailers and such, maybe), that's instantly something they can charge you with. Then go after a few people who're spotted using it on the Internet by traffic sniffing, meaning the only folks left using it are cranks and actual bad guys.
- Judgmentality 7y agoA total tangent, but the words chosen in this comment and how it relates to the logic behind the US War on Drugs are eery - down to "sniffing" out paraphernalia, "trafficking" illegal goods, end users are "cranks" and bad guys...
- SubiculumCode 7y agoI can encode hidden meaningd in poetry. If you outlaw poetry, our US experiment is over.
- shantly 7y agoThat some may get around it isn’t the point. Most won’t risk charges to share recipes with aunt Edna or family photos with Grandpa. Some will keep using it and stay under the radar but any time someone’s caught using it, even if it wasn’t part of a crime, it’ll be added to the list of charges against them. It’ll be dead for common use, and risky and annoying to use for those who keep to it.
- imhoguy 7y agoThis is why I am hesitant to use Tor, efforts to monitor it are probably several folds stronger than normal clearnet.
- ur-whale 7y agoRelated to that, Bernstein vs. USG is a nice story.