3 ms·

> It is in fact possible to backdoor communication systems for lawful intercept access Possible? Yes. Desirable? Absolutely not. > Warrants are not forever se

by shkkmo 4y ago

> It is in fact possible to backdoor communication systems for lawful intercept access Possible? Yes. Desirable? Absolutely not. > Warrants are not forever secret Says who? > check against abuse of lawful intercept can be incorporated into non-E2E encrypted protocols. Those checks are already woefully inadequate. There are plenty of examples of abuse of authority/access that just happened to be caught and went on for years. Somehow you claim this is going to stop happening if we give governments MORE surveillance authority? > The internet itself should be eradicated if we can't do everything at all costs to prevent harm against the weakest. At least you admit that eradication of the internet is your end goal.

_8j50 4y ago
> Possible? Yes. Desirable? Absolutely not. Then let's bring back public executions and cruel punishment. You know what else isn't desirable? Tolerating CSAM. > Says who? Alright, then secrecy of the warrant fails public audit checks. > Those checks are already woefully inadequate. There are plenty of examples of abuse of authority/access that just happened to be caught and went on for years. Somehow you claim this is going to stop happening if we give governments MORE surveillance authority? They already have authority just not the technical ability. You should use legal and political avenues to address a naughty government. Tolerating CSAM because you refuse to accept political realities or convince your ow citizens on the matter is a terrible thing. I don't what you are referring to regarding inadequate checks, I am proposing a system similar to CT logs for PKI except new encryption can't happen without public audit log of LEO authorizarion to intercept traffic. > At least you admit that eradication of the internet is your end goal. If the choice is between tolerating CSAM and eradicating the internet, the choice is easy for me, why isn't it for you? Fortunately, as you obviously know but chose to ignore for the sake of maligning me, we don't need to eradicate the internet in order to do our best to get rid of CSAM so clearly you knew that wasn't my intention but you misconstructed what I said for the sake of internet rage.

by shkkmo 4y ago

_8j50 4y ago

> Possible? Yes. Desirable? Absolutely not. Then let's bring back public executions and cruel punishment. You know what else isn't desirable? Tolerating CSAM. > Says who? Alright, then secrecy of the warrant fails public audit checks. > Those checks are already woefully inadequate. There are plenty of examples of abuse of authority/access that just happened to be caught and went on for years. Somehow you claim this is going to stop happening if we give governments MORE surveillance authority? They already have authority just not the technical ability. You should use legal and political avenues to address a naughty government. Tolerating CSAM because you refuse to accept political realities or convince your ow citizens on the matter is a terrible thing. I don't what you are referring to regarding inadequate checks, I am proposing a system similar to CT logs for PKI except new encryption can't happen without public audit log of LEO authorizarion to intercept traffic. > At least you admit that eradication of the internet is your end goal. If the choice is between tolerating CSAM and eradicating the internet, the choice is easy for me, why isn't it for you? Fortunately, as you obviously know but chose to ignore for the sake of maligning me, we don't need to eradicate the internet in order to do our best to get rid of CSAM so clearly you knew that wasn't my intention but you misconstructed what I said for the sake of internet rage.