|
|
Log in / Subscribe / Register

Bringing encryption restrictions in through the back door

Bringing encryption restrictions in through the back door

Posted Mar 19, 2020 7:15 UTC (Thu) by marcH (subscriber, #57642)
Parent article: Bringing encryption restrictions in through the back door

> Mathematics exists, much to the chagrin, if not outright bafflement, of politicians and others; those who need or want effectively unbreakable encryption can have it.

So, there's no point in gun control because the "bad guys" ignore regulations. Good thing they will comply with these new encryption rules /s


to post comments

Bringing encryption restrictions in through the back door

Posted Mar 21, 2020 21:19 UTC (Sat) by smitty_one_each (subscriber, #28989) [Link]

Furthermore, when we set up our our totally illegal unbiased news smuggling ring, @marcH, we'll doubtless use some out-of-band means to move one-time pads[1] and just thumb our noses at the authorities.

As with other external laws to manage behavior, this is doomed to affect mostly the law-abiding.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-time_pad

Bringing encryption restrictions in through the back door

Posted Apr 17, 2020 10:37 UTC (Fri) by niner (guest, #26151) [Link] (1 responses)

The difference is that it's kinda hard to have fatal accidents related to encryption and that encryption in the hands of mentally unstable people can be a nuisance at most. On the other side, contrary to encryption, guns are of no use to the general population.

So there's much benefit and little risk by making encryption available to the general population while there is little benefit and high risk by making guns generally available.

Bringing encryption restrictions in through the back door

Posted Apr 17, 2020 11:56 UTC (Fri) by pizza (subscriber, #46) [Link]

> So there's much benefit and little risk by making encryption available to the general population while there is little benefit and high risk by making guns generally available.

I disagree; these restrictions aren't actually intended to benefit the _public_, but instead to benefit the _government_. And there is absolutely much risk involved (to the government) when it can't effectively spy on its own populace and pro-actively "redirect" agitators into less disruptive activities.


Copyright © 2026, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds