3 ms·
Yes, but I'm not sure we should be giving up real rights to imagined threats. In practice, what encryption systems do is make it sufficiently inconvenient to st
by moomin 6y ago
Yes, but I'm not sure we should be giving up real rights to imagined threats. In practice, what encryption systems do is make it sufficiently inconvenient to steam open our letters that the authorities only do it with motivation. The only real case for some of these proposed laws is "we don't want to employ specialists in this field" not "these systems are uncrackable".
- red_admiral 6y agoOr: we want the full firehose of data, and then we want to employ Machine Learning specialists. ML is apparently magic.
- treis 6y agoThe motivation driving these laws is E2E encryption that if implemented correctly are uncrackable. Today, pretty much everything is encrypted but since the provider has the keys they can access the messages. E2E encryption shifts the keys to the user which means that the provider has no access to the content of the message. They are theoretically uncrackable without the user's secret and when it's Apple, Google, Facebook, et.al. implementing the system and not some 2 bit criminal operation it will be uncrackable in practice.
- moomin 6y agoTo quote Monty Python "This isn't an argument, this is just contradiction!"
- treis 6y agoI don't know what this means.
- moomin 6y agoFirst off, you definitely should watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohDB5gbtaEQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohDB5gbtaEQ But the point is the post just literally contradicted the previous post. There's not a lot of places to go from there.