3 ms·
I believe the federal government's concern (and those of various law enforcement agencies, etc.) is not with E2EE in general but with their desire for a specifi
by cmiles74 7y ago
I believe the federal government's concern (and those of various law enforcement agencies, etc.) is not with E2EE in general but with their desire for a specific (and, in my opinion, deeply flawed) implementation where they have an ability to read these messages. While law enforcement might be happy with a system that requires a warrant or some other paperwork, the US federal government appears to be demanding unfettered access to these messages.
In my opinion, the federal government's unfettered access to people's messages is entirely new with the advent of the internet. They didn't enjoy this level of access when people communicated by written letters nor when they spoke to each other over analog telephones. I believe the questions is less about the mechanism (E2EE) and more about the reach of the federal government and law enforcement and how comfortable we, as citizens, are with them having this kind of access to all of our communications.
In terms of people who are willingly breaking the law, they will always have access to communication methods that the federal government and law enforcement cannot easily surveil. Right now many E2EE mechanisms are the easiest way for these people to communicate privately. If the federal government gets their way and gains access to their communication, and starts to crack down on these crimes then these people will move to another communication medium. Perhaps even back to traditional letters.
There are many reasons to oppose an E2EE system where the federal government and law enforcement have a "backdoor" that lets them read all of these messages. For instance, it won't be long before another organization (perhaps even foreign) figures out how the mechanism works and gains access to every person's communications; the security provided by such a system will have a limited term and we may not know when that terms ends.
In my opinion, the most important issue is granting this level of power to the government and law enforcement. I think this could really be an existential threat to democracy in the US.
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 7y ago> They didn't enjoy this level of access when people communicated by written letters nor when they spoke to each other over analog telephones. I would think the appropriate comparison is neither of those, but rather "when people met in person". Usage of the internet today is much closer to what people did when meeting in person than when writing letters or even when talking on the phone, it is replacing a lot of direct face-to-face contact. The demand to forbid E2E encryption is analogous to the demand that every citizen always has to make sure that the government can listen in to every personal conversation they have, and not only right now, but retroactively.