3 ms·

> We are saying three things. One, that strong encryption is necessary for personal and national security. Two, that weakening encryption does more harm than go

by Gys 7y ago

> We are saying three things. One, that strong encryption is necessary for personal and national security. Two, that weakening encryption does more harm than good. And three, law enforcement has other avenues for criminal investigation than eavesdropping on communications and stored devices (this is just one example). Also: law enforcement assumes criminals and others are stupid and cannot not apply encryption and information hiding themselves. Plus creating your own chat app is extremely easy, so why even rely on the big and obvious ones, just DIY.

RankingMember 7y ago
I mean, really, isn't this kind of a moot point from a dedicated criminal's perspective? Does the government actually have any power? Sure, you'll catch the idiots operating over a compromised channel, but it doesn't matter what laws you pass wailing about "the children" and "criminals" if the criminals are rolling their own or even just using PGP.
- rando_null 7y ago
  It's not about criminals. It's just about control.
  - RankingMember 7y ago
    I think it's both. The government wants the power to see EVERYTHING because EVERYONE is a potential criminal.
- lolc 7y ago
  It should not be presumed that criminals are in any way smarter when it comes to technology. They may be more motivated, but when the options are less mainstream, they will make more mistakes. Backdooring mainstream encryption will substantially decrease security for criminals. What is often brushed over by proponents is that it will weaken security for all of us.
  - generalpass 7y ago
    > What is often brushed over by proponents is that it will weaken security for all of us. Because there are criminals in the government.
snarf21 7y ago
Exactly. Also, crimes against children didn't happen before 1995? This is an easy problem to solve with a proper whistleblower program. There are people adjacent to these criminals and they may be dependent or fearful of repercussions for coming forward. Treat them with witness protection and appropriate and large (millions) in monetary incentives. Like most things in life, you get what you incentivize. But this issue is about total surveillance not about protecting children.
- speeder 7y ago
  Whistleblowing is incompatible with current child porn laws. In several countries (Brazil, where I am from included), the law is that possession of child porn, for ANY reason, is a crime. It means that trying to give evidence to the police, will get you in jail, even if the police doesn't want to arrest you, they have to, because that is what the law says. Things get worse in certain countries that went along US child porn laws and ignored local culture and laws regarding related areas (for example, in Brazil age of consent is 14, and in some Brazillian regions marriage at that age still makes sense, usually due to harsh geography of the area that make it necessary, cue lots of young couples surprised when their personal photos are considered a crime...)

by Gys 7y ago

RankingMember 7y ago

I mean, really, isn't this kind of a moot point from a dedicated criminal's perspective? Does the government actually have any power? Sure, you'll catch the idiots operating over a compromised channel, but it doesn't matter what laws you pass wailing about "the children" and "criminals" if the criminals are rolling their own or even just using PGP.

rando_null 7y ago
It's not about criminals. It's just about control.
- RankingMember 7y ago
  I think it's both. The government wants the power to see EVERYTHING because EVERYONE is a potential criminal.
lolc 7y ago
It should not be presumed that criminals are in any way smarter when it comes to technology. They may be more motivated, but when the options are less mainstream, they will make more mistakes. Backdooring mainstream encryption will substantially decrease security for criminals. What is often brushed over by proponents is that it will weaken security for all of us.
- generalpass 7y ago
  > What is often brushed over by proponents is that it will weaken security for all of us. Because there are criminals in the government.

snarf21 7y ago

Exactly. Also, crimes against children didn't happen before 1995? This is an easy problem to solve with a proper whistleblower program. There are people adjacent to these criminals and they may be dependent or fearful of repercussions for coming forward. Treat them with witness protection and appropriate and large (millions) in monetary incentives. Like most things in life, you get what you incentivize. But this issue is about total surveillance not about protecting children.

speeder 7y ago
Whistleblowing is incompatible with current child porn laws. In several countries (Brazil, where I am from included), the law is that possession of child porn, for ANY reason, is a crime. It means that trying to give evidence to the police, will get you in jail, even if the police doesn't want to arrest you, they have to, because that is what the law says. Things get worse in certain countries that went along US child porn laws and ignored local culture and laws regarding related areas (for example, in Brazil age of consent is 14, and in some Brazillian regions marriage at that age still makes sense, usually due to harsh geography of the area that make it necessary, cue lots of young couples surprised when their personal photos are considered a crime...)