3 ms·
But then again, the only reason the balance has landed where it has with respect to physical locks is that physical locks and walls are already breakable by sta
by _Algernon_ 3y ago
But then again, the only reason the balance has landed where it has with respect to physical locks is that physical locks and walls are already breakable by state actors should they need to. There is no truly secure physical lock That's not true for e2ee.
- vetinari 3y agoIt is also pretty obvious that the lock was broken and it is impossible to break them en-masse, without anybody noticing. That's not true for the government-proposed regulation either.
- _Algernon_ 3y agoYes, exactly. Which is why any comparison of e2ee to physical locks is a ridiculous proposition.
- seanw444 3y agoI get caught off guard when people use "physical locks aren't actually that secure because the government can just make it irrelevant, but encryption is dangerously strong" as an argument against encryption, when it should be a tell about how terrifying your government is.
- _Algernon_ 3y agoI'm not arguing against encryption. Access to encryption is a generally a good thing. I'm arguing against a specific comparison being made between physical locks and encryption which is ridiculous on many levels, one of which I highlighted in my previous comment. Broad access to secure encryption is necessary in a free society.
- seanw444 3y agoI wasn't necessarily saying you were making that claim. Just in general.