4 ms·
it starts to sound like providing fully encrypted solution (where provider just isn't able to cooperate because of no access to plain text) makes the provider d
by VladRussian2 13y ago
it starts to sound like providing fully encrypted solution (where provider just isn't able to cooperate because of no access to plain text) makes the provider de-facto accessory to whatever crime may be committed by perpetrators who used the solution while committing the crime. Basically fully encrypted solution (incl. without government backdoor) moves into the same category as assault gun, ie. something that regular good citizens supposedly just don't have legitimate uses for.
- jlgreco 13y agoI'm not sure I catch your drift. I don't see how being an accessory enters the equation at all (how can you be held responsible for providing information you simply do not have?), and there are no current laws concerning "assault guns".
- unreal37 13y agoI get the reasoning. If you provide the ability to communicate securely without a government backdoor, the government will treat you like you assist terrorists. "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists." - George W. Bush, Sept 20 2001
- jlgreco 13y agoThat ship has sailed though, unless they really feel like harassing Phil Zimmermann again...