4 ms·
Nothing contradictory (in philosophy), really: they said American law enforcement should be able to break encryption when they have warrants and they now say Ch
by llamaimperative 2y ago
Nothing contradictory (in philosophy), really: they said American law enforcement should be able to break encryption when they have warrants and they now say Chinese spies should not be able to.
This is obviously technically impossible, but the desire for that end state makes a ton of sense from the IC’s perspective.
- hunter2_ 2y agoThat something can simultaneously be impossible and sensible is peculiar. It almost suggests that the technique has merely not yet been figured out. Secrets fail unsafe. Maybe an alternative doesn't.
- btilly 2y agoIt is sensible that people would want the impossible. It isn't sensible to try to mandate it. Government keeps trying to mandate it in various ways. With predictably bad results.
- tzs 2y agoHow is it obviously technically impossible?
- btilly 2y agoWhatever method is available to American law enforcement is eventually going to become available to Chinese spies. The record of keeping this kind of secret is abysmal. If by no other means, then by social engineering the same access that local police departments were supposed to have. Salt Typhoon - which this discussion is about - is an example. Tools for tracking people that were supposed to be for our side, turn out to also be used by the Chinese. Plus the act of creating partial security often creates new security holes that can be exploited in unexpected ways. Either you build things to be secure, or you have to assume that it will someday be broken. There is no in between.
- llamaimperative 2y agoSomething either has X degree of security (for everyone) or it does not.