3 ms·

Can someone please explain to me how that law will prevent anything or anybody from encrypted messaging, if I can just whip up a website and use javascript plus

Can someone please explain to me how that law will prevent anything or anybody from encrypted messaging, if I can just whip up a website and use javascript plus websockets/webrtc to implement encrypted chat? Like, yes, you can prevent the FANANG from implementing it, but criminals will just use the secure one...

nickslaughter02 1y ago
It will not. Criminals will move elsewhere and they will be spying on regular citizens. As intended.
- cindyllm 1y ago
  [dead]
probably_wrong 1y ago
I believe the concept is that I may not be able to jail you for your criminal activity but I can still jail you for breaking the encryption law. But more generally I think one has to account for the power of the default option - with so many criminals posting their crimes on social media and/or their Venmo descriptions, the likelihood of criminals abandoning (say) WhatsApp and coding their own is rather slim.
rollcat 1y ago
> [...] I can just whip up a website and use javascript plus websockets/webrtc to implement encrypted chat? HTTPS relies on centralised authority. It's right there in the name: Certificate Authority. Tell me, Mr. Anderson, what good is a phone call when you are unable to speak?
- littlecranky67 1y ago
  chrome --disable-web-security Here, fixed it for you Mr. Criminal.
topranks 1y ago
It won’t. It makes no attempt to outlaw encryption. We can still legally use PGP and completely avoid eavesdropping. What it does mandate is that messaging providers who they will name (think WhatsApp, Signal), will be obliged to have people reviewing the content of all messages sent. All but the stupidest of criminals will thus work around it, encrypting themselves over the top. While the average Joe gets all their messages read.
sandstrom 1y ago
This is the part that I think most politicians simply don't understand. I've been trying to argue this point with my government several times (some MPs even replied friendly, so they'd actually read it, but still don't understand or believe it).

nickslaughter02 1y ago

It will not. Criminals will move elsewhere and they will be spying on regular citizens. As intended.

cindyllm 1y ago
[dead]

probably_wrong 1y ago

I believe the concept is that I may not be able to jail you for your criminal activity but I can still jail you for breaking the encryption law. But more generally I think one has to account for the power of the default option - with so many criminals posting their crimes on social media and/or their Venmo descriptions, the likelihood of criminals abandoning (say) WhatsApp and coding their own is rather slim.

rollcat 1y ago

> [...] I can just whip up a website and use javascript plus websockets/webrtc to implement encrypted chat? HTTPS relies on centralised authority. It's right there in the name: Certificate Authority. Tell me, Mr. Anderson, what good is a phone call when you are unable to speak?

littlecranky67 1y ago
chrome --disable-web-security Here, fixed it for you Mr. Criminal.

topranks 1y ago

It won’t. It makes no attempt to outlaw encryption. We can still legally use PGP and completely avoid eavesdropping. What it does mandate is that messaging providers who they will name (think WhatsApp, Signal), will be obliged to have people reviewing the content of all messages sent. All but the stupidest of criminals will thus work around it, encrypting themselves over the top. While the average Joe gets all their messages read.

sandstrom 1y ago

This is the part that I think most politicians simply don't understand. I've been trying to argue this point with my government several times (some MPs even replied friendly, so they'd actually read it, but still don't understand or believe it).