4 ms·

Because of things like this, I'm at the point where I consider the invention of public-key encryption to be the worst thing that's ever happened to the world.

Because of things like this, I'm at the point where I consider the invention of public-key encryption to be the worst thing that's ever happened to the world. If governments had _immediately_ preemptively classified anything related to assymetric encryption—and actively enforced the classified status—as soon as the first research into it started appearing, the world would be a much better place than it is now.

garganzol 5y ago
This is a slippery slope way of thinking. One would argue that appearance of computers is similarly evil, but many of us can confirm that this is not true. It all depends on who uses the tool and their motives, not on the tool itself. The tool is powerful but it's totally neutral. And can be used for both bad (dominance, ransom) and good things (security).
- maccolgan 5y ago
  >who uses the tool and their motives, not on the tool itself. The tool is powerful but it's totally neutral. What if we had computer control like gun control?
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
vbezhenar 5y ago
Asymmetric cryptography is too simple to contain it. RSA is unbreakable and it's very simple to understand. It would be reinvented over and over by multiple people in multiple countries, you can't contain it.
Synaesthesia 5y ago
If you look at the history of encryption, thats preceisely what happened, and right up to the 90s they did contain it.
xondono 5y ago
Yes, because governments are trustworthy entities incapable of unethical behavior! /s
howinteresting 5y ago
DSA and RSA are pretty straightforward math. ECDSA is somewhat more complex but still pretty basic.
userbinator 5y ago
Governments did classify encryption as munitions for a long time, and some of the regulations from that era still exist. But it's hard to ban maths. On the other hand, contrary to all the downvotes you're getting, it's good to see some other people who have taken the same critical view of encryption that governments have/had --- because it can be used against them.

garganzol 5y ago

This is a slippery slope way of thinking. One would argue that appearance of computers is similarly evil, but many of us can confirm that this is not true. It all depends on who uses the tool and their motives, not on the tool itself. The tool is powerful but it's totally neutral. And can be used for both bad (dominance, ransom) and good things (security).

maccolgan 5y ago
>who uses the tool and their motives, not on the tool itself. The tool is powerful but it's totally neutral. What if we had computer control like gun control?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

vbezhenar 5y ago

Asymmetric cryptography is too simple to contain it. RSA is unbreakable and it's very simple to understand. It would be reinvented over and over by multiple people in multiple countries, you can't contain it.

Synaesthesia 5y ago

If you look at the history of encryption, thats preceisely what happened, and right up to the 90s they did contain it.

xondono 5y ago

Yes, because governments are trustworthy entities incapable of unethical behavior! /s

howinteresting 5y ago

DSA and RSA are pretty straightforward math. ECDSA is somewhat more complex but still pretty basic.

userbinator 5y ago

Governments did classify encryption as munitions for a long time, and some of the regulations from that era still exist. But it's hard to ban maths. On the other hand, contrary to all the downvotes you're getting, it's good to see some other people who have taken the same critical view of encryption that governments have/had --- because it can be used against them.