3 ms·
Let's say that it's possible to create a lock and doors for your house that are impossible to defeat. The security forces would instead find another way into yo
by retox 6y ago
Let's say that it's possible to create a lock and doors for your house that are impossible to defeat. The security forces would instead find another way into your property; the window, the chimney, blowing a hole in the wall, etc.
If the security forces don't have a master key for E2E encryption they should instead find another way to find evidence of a crime if they suspect one has taken place. The analogy does fall down somewhat when thinking about completely digital crimes when there is no physical evidence, one that comes to mind is child abuse, though this could be detected by teachers/care givers or analyzing videos/pictures from users which didn't practice good OPSEC.
I forget which group it was (Lizard Squad? LulzSec?) where one of the members was identified by analyzing internet usage and monitoring the suspects coming and going.
- rocqua 6y agoHonestly, if the police get into my house because of another way, I think that counts as 'defeating my lock'. Indeed, the fact that police can blow a hole in my wall is part of why I say they can defeat the lock. Change the analogy to a safe. No matter how good the safe, if police want, they can read the contents of the documents in my safe. The same can not be said for contents of encrypted documents. Now, it might be possible for the police to persecute someone without access to those documents. Certainly, I am not arguing 'the police need this access because they used to have it'. All I am arguing is that encryption came with a meaningful change in what law enforcement can and cannot access without cooperation. Claiming that we don't even need to consider the question because nothing meaningful changed is wrong. I don't believe we need to make that claim to argue against banning e2e encryption though.