- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
Encryption should be no more a crime than locking your house or storing your valuables in a safe.
Encryption is not just not a crime, it’s a republican virtue, those arguments usually used about guns, they are even better applicable to encryption. Encryption is actually a civil duty, because of herd immunity being damaged by people not using encryption. That public institutes’ erosion we are seeing in the last decades - it’s because the technological progress made the need for encryption to blow up, not accompanied with sufficient public perception. That erosion is a result of bad people having gotten orders of magnitude more information about everyone to plan their actions.
They’ll just make it a crime and pretend you were wrong all along. We’re not playing by moral rules anymore.
And backdoored encryption is just as bad as unencrypted, maybe worse, since it lulls you into a false sense of security.
“After Salt Typhoon’s hacking campaign targeting US telecom networks came to light last fall, then FBI director Christopher Wray described the phone company breaches as China’s “most significant cyber-espionage campaign in history.” The intrusions, which in some cases exploited the wiretap mechanisms built into telecoms for law enforcement use, prompted CISA and FBI officials to go so far as to recommend that Americans use end-to-end encrypted communication apps like Signal and WhatsApp to avoid leaving their texts and calls vulnerable to China’s real-time spying.”
Mathematically worse.
Too bad the paper proclamation that is the constitution means nothing today
It’s kind of integral to the function of enterprise?
The entire financial system literally relies on encryption
Lots of really critical stuff needs encryption, it’s absolutely insane to try and ban it.
to try to* ban it
People lock their doors; everyone understands.
wHaT aRe ThEy HiDiNg!!??!1?
In China, basically every enterprise uses a VPN to get uncensored internet when needed.
It’s definitely not integral. You could just control the connection points. Ie, all your software tools on intranet and wired connection only. Any data can be decrypted.
No one can bank online without reliable encryption. No one can transact business online without reliable encryption.
You can actually. It just wouldn’t be encrypted.
In which case anyone who wants to can read the message traffic and make changes to it before passing it on to the receiver.
No, you can’t conduct business this way.
Thats why it would have to be a closed system with controlled transmissions rather than omnidirectional radio transmissions.
You mean, for everyone to have their own infrastructure, many times what we have now, and still some jerk can literally wiretap like in old times?
Or send messengers?
Instead you just have to trust that anything you’re doing is actually with who they claim to be. No encryption means no identity or security guarantee.
Closed systems don’t require encryption.
Are you stupid enough to actually think the Internet is a closed system?
No lmao. How did you get that from all the talk about radio transmission and encryption?
No, you are wildly incorrect for multiple reasons both technical and practical.
I’m not even going to waste any more of my time pointing out how intensely ridiculous your assertions are.
Please tell me banking didnt exist before radio transmission.
People used encryption for commercial purposes since Antiquity.
If your point is how it mostly was right “before radio transmission” - that latency would break civilization. You’d have to send messengers with safes for correspondence. The contents of which would be encrypted.
By the way, in those days nobody in their right mind would suggest banning encryption. If you need to read something - get a court order to read it first, if you read it without that you’ve committed a crime and it’s not admissible. If it’s encrypted, you could get the court to demand someone to decipher it, if it’s certain that they can.
A lot of steps, see, to not infringe on private life.
Please continue to highlight your spectacular ignorance so that everyone knows for sure that you should not be taken seriously.
Everyone? You mean the 10 people that read this thread?
That’s correct, but your point is not clear. Public infrastructure is not a closed system. If your “closed systems” have to communicate, they either build and support their own parallel infrastructure or don’t, or communicate without encryption over public infrastructure. Which is not acceptable.
Encryption is only a crime if done by a poor or not the government. So long as it’s got the rich people backing it, it’s not even in the same league.
When will you people see that this world doesn’t have universal rules. It has rules for the poor. And those for the rich.
There’s a mass without roofs, a prison to fill
A country soul that reads post not bills
A strike, and a line of cops outside of the mill.
There is a right to obey, and the right to kill.
© Rage against the Machine
Yet.
Encryption is not a crime *unless you’re doing it to someone else’s data to extort them for bitcoins
They’ll send you to the Gulag here even if you didn’t commit a crime.
It’s the Cypherpunk’s Manifesto all over again.
Legalize it
I think it’s contextual. It is definitely relevant to bring into a criminal case that criminals made attempts to obstruct gathering of evidence in commission of the crime. It’s no different than shredding or burning paper files. Evidence of criminals taking steps to hide the criminal activity is how you prove that a transgression is willful rather than negligent. That matters in cases like murder.
Encryption is also criminal in some contexts, like encrypted radio broadcasts on frequencies for public use.
It definitely belongs as a talking point in a courtroom, imo.
It’s no different than shredding or burning paper files.
Both are normal if you work with information you wouldn’t like to leak. Or something very personal.
They are that thing you said only if they are unusual for the circumstance. When that gives information that a person did something not normal.
Because that’s a sign of something, kinda similar to shaking hands and missing shovel and sudden lack of time for guests.
Encrypting everything on Internet-connected machines is not unusual. It’s perfectly normal. It’s f* obligatory.
Encryption is also criminal in some contexts, like encrypted radio broadcasts on frequencies for public use.
Because that’s almost jamming, if everyone could broadcast all they can, nobody could use those frequencies. And since you have to make space there, private transmissions probably belong somewhere else. Doesn’t matter when using wire. This is irrelevant to encryption.
It definitely belongs as a talking point in a courtroom, imo.
No it doesn’t. Even if someone suddenly started encrypting everything, no. Maybe they learned how the world works and decided to learn to do it just in case.
With respect, this is a short-sighted take. There’s literally no legitimate crime that is made worse because a person tried to avoid it being detected. Plot a murder over tor? Not a good look. But in what universe is someone less morally culpable because they just posted on craigslist?
On the other hand, allowing the use of encryption or other privacy methods to affect the criminality or punishment assigned to an action just creates a backdoor to criminalizing privacy itself. Allowing that serves no real purpose in deterring folks from hurting others, but it sure does further the interests of an oppressive or authoritarian regime.
How does covering up a crime not make it worse when it allows you to get away and commit more crime?
Doing crime in the privacy of my own home allows me to get away with it and commit more crime, doesn’t mean we should have transparent walls that everyone can watch what you do through.
I don’t disagree with that but the article is talking about what arguments are permissible in a court room which is a little different. Same as using tools to commit a crime. It’s not illegal to own or use tools but when used in commission of a crime, this can be a factor in proving elements of a crime that require proof of intention or malice.
