5 ms·
I don't like the argument that backdoors are bad because they could fall in the wrong hands. It implies that one would be fine with backdoors if they could be m
by bondarchuk 3y ago
I don't like the argument that backdoors are bad because they could fall in the wrong hands. It implies that one would be fine with backdoors if they could be made perfectly secure. Backdoors are bad simply because the government should not spy on their own citizens en masse, and it will still be bad when hypothetically perfect surveillance tech is invented.
- bArray 3y agoIt's the same argument if you consider the government also to be bad hands - but point taken.
- verisimi 3y agoGovernment are the wrong hands.
- mavhc 3y agoI blame the populace
- boffinAudio 3y agoThe people always get the government they deserve.
- FpUser 3y agoNo. Government grows like a cancer and keeps little options for people to do much about it. Voting by choosing between 2 cheeks of the same ass does not accomplish much either.
- verisimi 3y agoI tend to say 2 wings of the same bird, but that is an even more vivid image! Cheers
- FpUser 3y ago>"I tend to say 2 wings of the same bird" Birds are offended ;) >"Cheers" My pleasure
- boffinAudio 3y agoYes. If you are ruled by a government that does not have your best interests at heart, that is on you to change. Government derives its power from the people it rules. There is no other source of that power.
- hedora 3y agoI suggest you read the dictator’s handbook. Government derives its power from some percentage of the population it rules. That percentage can be measured and is extremely low in most present-day democracies.
- boffinAudio 3y agoDictators power depends on the peoples fear .. this is why it always takes courage to remove a dictatorship.
- kridsdale3 3y agoThe more powerful weapons become, the smaller that group can be.
- momirlan 3y agoah, the illusion of people power. i would say the political parties have the power, and while they are "elected", clearly they're not working for the people but for the financial benefit of a few.
- kridsdale3 3y agoThis is only true in countries where the people had any say in the establishing of power. Before 1776, that was just about nowhere. Today, there are still many lands and 100s of millions of people who give no consent to be governed, and yet governed they are.
- askiiart 3y agoWhen the system is heavily stacked against you, such that you cannot change it meaningfully through legal means, what other options are there? If you want to totally reform the entire government, you can start a rebellion. A military may be more merciful if it's just a small insurrection, but if the government is in real danger, a military has far, far more power than needed to put down any rebellion. So what, do you expect the citizens to storm the Bastille? The only reason any uprisings are successful is because the military allows them to be. Sure, we can absolutely make smaller changes with votes, but when it comes down to it, if you have the support of the military, you have all the power. And because of that, citizens have relatively little power. I'm not advocating for an insurrection against any government, but "that is on you to change" is nonsense.
- mavhc 3y agoWhat's stopping you standing for election?
- FpUser 3y agoMake a wild guess
- askiiart 3y agoLet's see, no political support, no financial support, not enough spare time, a specific desire to avoid politics because it's almost always a shitshow, absolutely zero charisma... what else?
- mavhc 3y agoI mean that's the whole point, if you don't like who's running, change it.
- csydas 3y ago> It implies that one would be fine with backdoors if they could be made perfectly secure. No, I don't see how that's implied at all. The arguments against back doors isn't that someone bad _might_ use it, it's that there is no need for the backdoor in the first place and there is no such thing as a secure back door that only intended people can use. Authentication is not identification -- a client passing a secret to the server doesn't mean the person sending the secret should have this secret/be allowed to use this secret, it just means that they have the correct secret to get authorization from the server. Thus, there is no such thing as a backdoor that only the "good guys" can use, this is an absurd statement (I am not implying you said this, but it seems to be the goal of governments and many tech companies for some reason...) Technology is already chatty and insecure enough, we don't need yet another way for someone to get access to our personal devices. The argument against back doors isn't misuse of the backdoors, it's that they shouldn't exist in the first place. There is no way to have a "safe" backdoor if any attackers with enough intent want to get access to whatever has the backdoor. Perhaps some persons argue they'd be "okay" with the theoretical "good" backdoor, but I don't think that such arguments have been taken to their logical conclusions to explain how such a backdoor would ever ensure that only a person who really should be using it could be using it.
- ballenf 3y agoA secure communication backdoor has the same logic as a two-sided triangle.
- easytiger 3y ago> * It implies that one would be fine with backdoors if they could be made perfectly secure.* No, it implies that perfect security is impossible. Which is philosophically true.