3 ms·

SSL everything.

• Alupis 12y ago
  You mean: "TLS Everything" ;-P
• smsm42 12y ago
  Unless, of course, direct encrypted communication is prohibited. Because, you know, Internet is a public utility now, and if you are using public thing, you should abide by public's rules. Like connecting to SSL sites only using approved ISP SSL proxies that allow lawful intercept. After all, you accept that to drive on public roads you need a license. So, to browse on public internet, you need to follow the rules too. And the rules say law enforcement should be able to see what you are transmitting - given properly signed court order, of course - so that means you can not use non-interceptable encryption. See how this logic works?
  • venomsnake 12y ago
    I think that this creates both first and fourth amendment issues.
    • smsm42 12y ago
      I don't see 1st amendment issues if this is content-neutral (I don't think the Supreme Court would consider the choice of encryption scheme being speech by itself and thus protected expression) towards underlying data. As for 4th amendment, right now I think the prevailing position is that ability to collect data is not search until the data is actually collected, so providing capability for lawful intercept would not be considered 4th amendment problem. I don't like it too much, but that seems to be the state of affairs now.
  • dguaraglia 12y ago
    Oh, this is totally coming. If they really manage to pull off the "you can't encrypt your own device because TERRORISM" (what Comey has been asking for) then what guarantee you have that they won't force corporations to stop using encrypted transfer between servers? It's so much easier to force corporations with an NSL than trying to pass legislation violating the rights of individual people.