3 ms·

All those things are regulated, specifically to reduce chances for abusing them, but also to help in fetching criminals. Similar, nobody is demanding a ban on e

• tresqotheq 4y ago
  > But society is all about balancing the good and the bad. Yes, but the "bad" tends to become "good", as the members of the society becomes weaker and weaker.
• ajvs 4y ago
  > what they want (now) is the balanced middle, to allow justified access for "the good guys". Which can only be done through spyware installed universally if encryption isn't going to be broken. Because that certainly isn't ripe for abuse..
  • ben_w 4y ago
    Yes, it will be abused. As will the surveillance tech that I prefer as an alternative to crypto backdoors, on the grounds that (1) the crypto is far too important to permit backdoors, and (2) it won't be possible to stop boring everyday criminals from getting surveillance tech, let alone governments, and (3) crypto is knowledge that's already out of the bag, so sufficiently motivated bad guys can still have it without backdoors even if everyone else's crypto is broken. That's why I can only see a plausible outcome involving radical reductions in penalties for basically everything.
• coldtea 4y ago
  >Similar, nobody is demanding a ban on encryption (anymore), what they want (now) is the balanced middle There is no balanced middle with encryption. Things are either encrypted or their not. "Encrypted but a third party has access" or "Encrypted, but with breakable encryption" is as good as non encrypted.