3 ms·
By that argument, why have laws against stealing (criminals will just take stuff), or grevious bodily harm (criminals will just hit people), or verbal abuse (cr
by CJefferson 5y ago
By that argument, why have laws against stealing (criminals will just take stuff), or grevious bodily harm (criminals will just hit people), or verbal abuse (criminals will just keep shouting at people).
I don't buy this argument at all -- if we ban encryption, except for government sanctioned encryption, it will be the easiest thing in the world to detect if anyone tries sending it over the open internet.
- usrbinbash 5y ago> it will be the easiest thing in the world to detect if anyone tries sending it over the open internet. And how shall "goverment sanctioned encryption" be distinguished from "non sanctioned encryption"? The point of (good) encryption is to make the result look like stochastically random bytes.
- CJefferson 5y agoIf government can demand the keys, they can take them and decrypt it. You could claim you are sending packets of random bytes for no reason to a friend, but I doubt any jury would believe you.
- usrbinbash 5y ago> If government can demand the keys, they can take them and decrypt it. The question isn't how its decrypted, the question is how to determine WHICH traffic to decrypt in order to inspect it.
- dchftcs 5y agoPoor analogy. Stealing is the actual bad behaviour, stealing itself is bad for society, anyone who steals should be punished. Substitute "encryption" for "stealing" then you know why you're wrong.