2 ms·
Sorry, I meant it as in someone else installing surveillance on a device/bugging it, not as in installing something with a backdoor for some possible later use,
by RandomLensman 1y ago
Sorry, I meant it as in someone else installing surveillance on a device/bugging it, not as in installing something with a backdoor for some possible later use, i.e., targeted surveillance of a specific device under a warrant etc. So something which can have a lot more effort per device involved, potentially access to it, and not some broad-based thing.
And, yes, there can be a debate if such warrants are desirable etc., but I think it's quite different from broad-based backdoors for potential mass surveillance etc. and liberal democracies can decide to have such tools available.
- JoshTriplett 1y agoAh, got it! Sorry for us talking past each other there, then. I think part of what I was suggesting still applies there: if you can't install things remotely, and you have oversight to ensure that any backdoor applied to you has to have been sent to everyone (which provides a measure of security), then what's left is physical control of the device. For instance, keeping the device in your possession, locking it down against peripherals... That can't prevent you from being physically coerced, but it provides a lot of security in every other case. And if things have devolved to the point of you being physically coerced then you have much worse problems.