4 ms·

A wall, not every wall.

• brabel 3y ago
  So if technology made it possible to "unlock" only a single encrypted connection from a particular suspect, then it would be fine? Because such technology is actually feasible if you accept that the police will never use that to unlock someone's connections without a judicial order (like we seem to assume is the case when the police raids a "wall" or home). That can be enforced by having a system that requires a judge's private key to sign a digital warrant which can the only be used to "unlock" a particular encrypted channel. The judge's private keys would become extremely valuable of course, making the judges high level target: though I suspect they already are.
  • _heimdall 3y ago
    I don't think many would complain if there was a truly secure way to allow decryption of a single person's communication after the fact. The problem is partly that end users have no way of knowing when their communication has been decrypted. I know if the cops kicked my door in, I don't know if they're watching my messages with or without a warrant.
    • seanw444 3y ago
      Thank God there isn't. My own government scares me more than random hackers do.
  • naasking 3y ago
    > The judge's private keys would become extremely valuable of course, making the judges high level target: though I suspect they already are. This is the real problem. This introduces a global vulnerability that isn't analogous to anything physical, like breaking down walls. There are almost 50,000 judges in the USA alone. Breaking into any one of their offices or houses, or bribing them, could grant you access to every phone or computer on the planet. A local magistrate doesn't have the authority to issue a warrant to break down every door in the USA, nor would the local police be able to execute such an order even if it could be issued. There are matters of scale here that are novel.