4 ms·

Pretty sure the government won't view it that way. It'll be called a loophole and crushed if it gets mainstream. This is the country where sending an HTML GET a

by bo1024 5y ago

Pretty sure the government won't view it that way. It'll be called a loophole and crushed if it gets mainstream. This is the country where sending an HTML GET and receiving response 200 can be prosecuted under the CFAA. We need a legal environment that explicitly protects encrypted communications, not one where they are are maybe tolerated on the fringe.

eikenberry 5y ago
This is a different battle. The government has gone after general purpose encryption multiple times and has been beaten back so far. And while this would definitely be a win for that side of things it isn't the same battle and the Earn IT Act is not about encryption in general. It is about encryption in the context of commercial entities and their managed content.
- dchftcs 5y ago
  With greater surveillance power and the precedence of passing this bill the government gains the ability to push a stronger one, including one that targets general encryption. Your intended effect is uncertain at best, I'm not even sure it's going to be a net benefit in the most ideal scenario (losing encryption in commercial setting is at the very least extremely inefficient), and there would certainly be high costs to the society until that materializes. At worst it would never materialize. You're effectively advocating to take a very high risk to liberty and privacy for some very wishful thinking.
  - eikenberry 5y ago
    I'm sorry I didn't make this clear enough. I don't want this to happen, I'm just speculation that it could have side effects that are helpful to parts of the community that would like to see less reliance on centralized systems. I'm not saying that is worth the tradeoff, because I don't think it is. Just interesting. Regarding the point that this could/would lead to an attack on general encryption, IMO I think they are doing this more because they are beginning to understand that they can't attack general purpose encryption head on. It is needed in to many places to make it illegal. So they are attacking it from the sides, through corporate interests.

by bo1024 5y ago

eikenberry 5y ago

This is a different battle. The government has gone after general purpose encryption multiple times and has been beaten back so far. And while this would definitely be a win for that side of things it isn't the same battle and the Earn IT Act is not about encryption in general. It is about encryption in the context of commercial entities and their managed content.

dchftcs 5y ago
With greater surveillance power and the precedence of passing this bill the government gains the ability to push a stronger one, including one that targets general encryption. Your intended effect is uncertain at best, I'm not even sure it's going to be a net benefit in the most ideal scenario (losing encryption in commercial setting is at the very least extremely inefficient), and there would certainly be high costs to the society until that materializes. At worst it would never materialize. You're effectively advocating to take a very high risk to liberty and privacy for some very wishful thinking.
- eikenberry 5y ago
  I'm sorry I didn't make this clear enough. I don't want this to happen, I'm just speculation that it could have side effects that are helpful to parts of the community that would like to see less reliance on centralized systems. I'm not saying that is worth the tradeoff, because I don't think it is. Just interesting. Regarding the point that this could/would lead to an attack on general encryption, IMO I think they are doing this more because they are beginning to understand that they can't attack general purpose encryption head on. It is needed in to many places to make it illegal. So they are attacking it from the sides, through corporate interests.