3 ms·
>So to me, the real world seems to line up with having encryption with a "back door" only the government has access to. Physical access is easier to control as
by gtyras2mrs 7y ago
>So to me, the real world seems to line up with having encryption with a "back door" only the government has access to.
Physical access is easier to control as getting access has a cost. Digital access is effectively free.
The problem with this is that physical access has a cost and limiting it behind approvals and procedures - can deter improper access. (Not always - if a cop really wanted into your house - they will get in)
Digital access is effectively free. It doesn’t cost very much to use a backdoor on millions of devices across the globe. There isn’t much that can be done if the backdoor is leaked.
Police officers use a battering ram or force to get into a house. We know how it works. But knowing it doesn’t increase chances of burglaries.
- skybrian 7y agoThere is no reason in principle why the big tech companies can't require a court order. They say they do that whenever possible. The problem is when the law is against them with things like national security orders, along with the question of how we can ensure that they are regulating access properly. But in theory, these things could be fixed.
- gtyras2mrs 7y agoLet's think of it this way. If a police battering ram is stolen, you can't really use it to attack millions of houses in a day. There have been known cases of police personnel misusing their roles. Police have broken into houses without warrants. But the scope of damage is limited. Whereas digital backdoors can be used to jeopardize millions of devices in a very short period of time. Sure, you could require a warrant. But it doesn't reduce the risk of someone misusing digital backdoors. All it requires is one breach.