3 ms·
Apart from what others said, there is also the following problem. People won't like this and will start encrypting traffic with non-compromised algorithms. Give
by feanaro 7y ago
Apart from what others said, there is also the following problem. People won't like this and will start encrypting traffic with non-compromised algorithms. Given that properly encrypted traffic appears random, how would you enforce the requirement that everyone uses the state-sanctioned, compromised algorithm? In order to check and enforce, you'd have to turn this into an online, warrantless, dragnet-style system, the very thing you were trying to avoid. A contradiction.
It's not feasible to ban people from using their own encryption unless you plan on severely restricting their freedom.
- cvwright 7y agoLaw enforcement likes to talk about big, scary threats like terrorism, because those make the public more likely to accept their position. The article below argues that the real use case for breaking encryption is to catch everyday criminals, not to go after shadowy Bond villains. Would the public still go for it, if they looked at it this way? Probably not... The Encryption Debate Isn't About Stopping Terrorists, It's About Solving Crime https://www.lawfareblog.com/encryption-debate-isnt-about-stopping-terrorists-its-about-solving-crime https://www.lawfareblog.com/encryption-debate-isnt-about-sto... Edit: And most everyday criminals are not technologically savvy. Half of them probably have a hard time using Telegram safely.
- paulryanrogers 7y ago> It's not feasible to ban people from using their own encryption unless you plan on severely restricting their freedom. In practice even the tech types weary of using and maintaining truly secure solutions. So if they outlaw backdoor-less solutions then companies won't support them. And without commercial support the options will dwindle. And even donation supported projects like Truecrypt will fold under pressure. Crypto isn't a one-person job