3 ms·
Also I think "Security" was the wrong term to use - maybe "Societal Order" is better? What I mean is if companies are required to build in law enforcement back
by tqi 7y ago
Also I think "Security" was the wrong term to use - maybe "Societal Order" is better?
What I mean is if companies are required to build in law enforcement backdoors, we could see X benefit (ie some % reduction in certain types of crime) and Y damage (some reduction in technical security, some reduction in govt accountability, etc).
Personally, I place a lot of value on the Y damage, so I don't think the tradeoff is worth it. But those are just my values, and I think it's possible / reasonable to have different values that change the balance.
- stjohnswarts 7y ago> reply The problem isn't that it's algebraic though. There are no back doors, once governments have it then all your freedom to communicate against them is broken. I don't know why anyone would look at the likes of world leaders such as Xi, Putin, KJI and Trump and think this is a good idea in any way.