4 ms·
> I don't think Signal could legally operate in the US with this act in place. Of course they could operate. They would just have to backdoor their encryption.
by pacificmint 7y ago
> I don't think Signal could legally operate in the US with this act in place.
Of course they could operate. They would just have to backdoor their encryption. Which, presumably, is what this legislation wants to achieve.
They don't want a world with no chat apps, they want a world with chat apps they can listen to.
What Signal is saying in this blog post is that they would rather give up the US market than weaken their encryption. Which is worth saying, because it's probably not true for most other apps. Most corporations would not give up the US market, no matter what compromises they have to make.
- maqp 7y agoSpot on. The thing is, content is still valuable and companies would like to access it on behalf of the government, but they now have to compete with private messaging apps. The big tech companies want the government to force them to make more profits on user data by forcing the backdoor. If this was something the tech companies didn't want, they'd be spending billions to lobby for the human right to privacy.
- AlexandrB 7y ago> Of course they could operate. They would just have to backdoor their encryption. Is it even possible to have end-to-end encryption (in the technical sense of the term) with a backdoor? If your product's marquee feature is security via end-to-end encryption your product is a non-starter in a jurisdiction that bans end-to-end encryption, no?
- mumbisChungo 7y agoask the CEO of Zoom