4 ms·

> Putting a backdoor into encryption is less secure than a random Microsoft employee backdooring me. At least I know it's Microsoft who will be doing the backdo

> Putting a backdoor into encryption is less secure than a random Microsoft employee backdooring me. At least I know it's Microsoft who will be doing the backdoor... My point isn't about how much you trust Microsoft, but that Microsoft has keys, which are more easily stolen and in many regards more valuable than the scheme I gave. > TSA keys Not remotely comparable. These were never designed to be secure in the sense we're talking here. > OPM (all of it) > NSA's hacking tools Hence the scheme I gave, which isn't vulnerable in the same way.

raxxorrax 6y ago
Basically all your arguments have been proved false in a short amount of time. Agencies could not name a single case where mass surveillance helped. And don't kid yourself, if you have a master key to encryption, it is mass surveillance you try to implement and it will be used as such. We had security agencies that had the info but didn't act in case of Vienna. Encryption wasn't the issue here, this is an incontinent case of saving face at best, a deliberate attack against civil rights at worst. > These were never designed to be secure in the sense we're talking here Encryption today is a protection against access for a limited amount of time. It is an intrinsic rule about every encryption algorithm. It is fundamental property and widely known.