That's certainly an easy position to take. Sounds woke. Requires no critical thought.
Much harder is to acknowledge that indeed powerful communication technology with total privacy and encryption is an extremely dangerous loophole that didn't exist before. We can't march blindly into this, distribute it everywhere, and pretend like there will be no consequences.
I don't quite know what the answer is. I do know government control is not the answer, so the private sector had better wake up and stop ignoring this problem.
The Supreme Court has considered items like this on a very regular basis. Justice Scalia wrote on behalf of the court in 1987 in Arizona v. Hicks:
Antonin Scalia said:
There is nothing new in the realization that the Constitution sometimes insulates the criminality of a few in order to protect the privacy of us all.
It would be like having a massive, unbreakable safe. The government could confiscate the safe via warrant, but if it's unbreakable, they can't compel the accused to provide the combination to open it.
The Supreme Court has a myriad of decisions affirming that liberty will necessarily result in some criminals going free.
This is why the 1st and 2nd Amendment is so important!
I think you meant the 4th not the 2nd.
Yup. Pretty much . The only way that I can see this make senators happy is that there could be a one time use bypass for devices but I'm 100% sure law enforcement agencies would try to find a way to make it unlimited
There is no way this doesn't become the case. They use the extreme circumstance to justify the creation of the tool, then continue to lower the bar until it's used for neighbourhood petty crime.
Dear Lawmakers,
You can’t be entrusted to keep the keys to my backdoor. The NSA lost a whole suite of their hacking tools to the bad guys a few years ago. Result: hundreds of thousands of computers became infected with nasties, and many systems were badly compromised – including government ones.
They will lose control of this too. It is also inevitable that if there is a way "around" the math, since going through the math is nearly impossible, that others will find the same way around.
Government agents are just too lazy to set up stings, do buy-busts, or investigate crimes after they've been committed. They want to eliminate 4th Amendment protections and simply create a police state. The answer is no.
Will bad things happen? Yes. That's how we know we're still living in a free society. Liberty is risky. It involves danger. It sure beats being a slave, though.
Exactly. Good old fashioned police work still works.
I'll take risky liberty over the alternate every day.
Yo' Senators. Law enforcement can gain access to encrypted data from Facebook and Apple. It's call getting a warrant. There's something called the 4th Amendment.
This isn't the issue. What they want is the ability to request
unencrypted data.
RSA can be implemented in less than half a page of Python code.
A 2048 bit key would take approximately the energy to boil an ocean to break.
So here we are. We can implement unbreakable encryption in less than a page of Python.
I'd say the cat is out of the bag and we are done with the argument.
What is the senate screaming about?
Exactly. There is no way the government can prevent an individual from encrypting a string of text and then just plain old emailing, or hell, physically mailing, that encrypted document.
The Senate and Law Enforcement wants to ban effective encryption on a massive scale. They aren't concerned with the individual using RSA, but rather massive use of encryption. This, in my opinion, absolutely defeats the government's argument this is about individual heinous cases.
[automerge]1576020616[/automerge]
Welcome to the United States of Amerika, created by the new Republikan party.
This is not a partisan issue. Both parties have large contingents that will support law enforcement's request for an encryption back door.
