3 ms·

As an aside, “suspicionless” is a bad translation of what would correctly translate to “without cause”. I agree that there shouldn’t be a backdoor by default.

by layer8 1y ago

As an aside, “suspicionless” is a bad translation of what would correctly translate to “without cause”. I agree that there shouldn’t be a backdoor by default. But, for example, planting a modified app update with backdoor on the device of a suspected high-risk felon, based on a court warrant, is something that can be more reasonably debated.

observationist 1y ago
That's active surveillance and wiretapping, and is not a backdoor. Backdoors are unacceptable 100% of the time, and should never be legal. A backdoor is a lazy power grab that is either supported in ignorance by technically illiterate useful idiots or supported in full knowledge of the intended partisan abuses of basic civil liberties. Hacking a criminal's phone with compromised software, and/or intercepting their voice & data, is not a backdoor. Backdoors mandate a violation of informed consent, and as such, should be criminalized without exception. There's no place for backdoors in civilized societies.
JoshTriplett 1y ago
> I agree that there shouldn’t be a backdoor by default. But, for example, planting a modified app update with backdoor on the device of a suspected high-risk felon, based on a court warrant, is something that can be more reasonably debated. Sure. And on the flipside, given the many ways such a capability is a security risk and an abusable backdoor itself, it's something to develop additional technical safeguards against, such as Binary Transparency to verify that everyone's getting the same binaries.
raxxorraxor 1y ago
Court warrants aren't reliable, at least in Germany. Until that is fixed, which is quite important, there is not reason to allow something like chat control. There are other channels for investigations that are enough, chat control introduces less security that we would gain (if there even is any gain).

by layer8 1y ago

observationist 1y ago

That's active surveillance and wiretapping, and is not a backdoor. Backdoors are unacceptable 100% of the time, and should never be legal. A backdoor is a lazy power grab that is either supported in ignorance by technically illiterate useful idiots or supported in full knowledge of the intended partisan abuses of basic civil liberties. Hacking a criminal's phone with compromised software, and/or intercepting their voice & data, is not a backdoor. Backdoors mandate a violation of informed consent, and as such, should be criminalized without exception. There's no place for backdoors in civilized societies.

JoshTriplett 1y ago

> I agree that there shouldn’t be a backdoor by default. But, for example, planting a modified app update with backdoor on the device of a suspected high-risk felon, based on a court warrant, is something that can be more reasonably debated. Sure. And on the flipside, given the many ways such a capability is a security risk and an abusable backdoor itself, it's something to develop additional technical safeguards against, such as Binary Transparency to verify that everyone's getting the same binaries.

raxxorraxor 1y ago

Court warrants aren't reliable, at least in Germany. Until that is fixed, which is quite important, there is not reason to allow something like chat control. There are other channels for investigations that are enough, chat control introduces less security that we would gain (if there even is any gain).