Nope nope nope.
Nope nope nope nope nope nope nope nope nope.
The nations of the Five Eyes security alliance – Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the USA and the UK – plus Japan and India, have called on technology companies to design their products so they offer access to encrypted messages and content. A joint “International Statement” issued on Sunday frames the issue as a matter of …
> They will never learn
What is there to learn? Like all rulers since the dawn of civilization, they are afraid of the unruly masses, and want to keep tabs on them.
The fact Backdoors are useless or even counterproductive against criminals is irrelevant, that's not why they're here. They allow the governments to sleep better at night, and thus are perfectly doing the job they were meant to do.
Note the tearful "somebody please think of the children!" argument, a clear sign they have no real arguments to back up their project.
They really will never learn.
My point is that they HAVE learned, and the result of their "learning" is far more sinister than anyone wants to admit. They ignore facts, focus on FEEL, and the media helps them.
And they know DAMN WELL what the truth is, and blatantly LIE about it ANYWAY.
Legislating against mathematics is fruitless.
Not when you a) manipulate with *FEEL* in every election, b) have willing accomplices in the vast majority of the news media, and c) rely on your electorate being a bunch of "Sheeple".
(sadly, unfortunately, with deep regret)
icon, because, 'for the children" was mentioned early on in the article as a primary reason for justifying this, but we know what *THEY* _REALLY_ want: POWER. It's _ALWAYS_ about POWER. And to do that, they MUST "dis-empower" US.
Even if what they wanted could work without compromising security, will they have to ban every app that promises end to end encryption? Will they ban websites that offer such encrypted communication outside of apps? How would they stop terrorists from sharing keys when they were together and encrypting ordinary emails before sending?
The cat left the bag decades ago, what they want they cannot get even if they were able to force Apple, Google, Microsoft, Facebook etc. to comply.
It would simply cause new comms tools to be developed that are simply off the radar.
Easily done. Remember how PGP emerged? IDEA? OpenSSL? And the STUPID attempts by gummints to limit "strong encryption" exports. The defense: it went OPEN SOURCE.
Too many other examples of outright REBELLION against government control over encryption happened back in the 90's, and some bad fallout (Korean government requiring an ActiveX component fror online banking as one example). Just remember PGP, IDEA, OpenSSL, and those PGP T shirts... (when shipping the binary compiled code was "illegal", but putting the math behind it on a T shirt was NOT)
"It would simply cause new comms tools to be developed that are simply off the radar."
There could be some small island nations that couldn't give a rat's backside about what other nations legislate and apps can be available from "there". It might be big business or at least a steady income.
Yes the source code was printed (or may have been photocopied from a book, I can't recall). Which was legal to export. It was then OCR'd and I was one of the many volunteers who proofread the OCR'd files against the printout and corrected where necessary. Let me just point out that back in the day OCR was awful.. Anyway, the end result was a legal copy of PGP.
Sure, it will never work but there is an easy fix - simply drop the national and international Internet access speed to 1200 baud. Remember those days? There was virtually zero hacking attacks, spam, QAnon, and pornography was just something that you bought at the newsagents.
I'm sure I'll get downvoted for this idea, but most people are OK with speed limits on the road so why not the Internet too? Or should we just raise the motorway speed limit to 700mph?
"[...] and pornography was just something [...]"
...that took longer to download in more compact files. Remember various messaging boards that preceded the web? They also facilitated the use of the postal services to distribute hard copy.
Spam, trolls, and "flooding" attacks were also known in those days. That's why usenet type groups eventually became no longer viable as discussion fora.
Well geez if you're going to postulate that they'd drop the speed of connections so low that you couldn't use encryption, why allow internet access across international borders at all? Just cut all those submarine cables and tell people they can only use the sites inside the country.
That's what they're talking about here. If you're waiting for peer to peer encrypted messaging to get a "boost" you're about a decade late, or whenever it was that iMessage was introduced which has been peer to peer encrypted from day one.
I believe Whatsapp and Skype are as well, and while nobody can keep up with how quickly Google launches and then kills messaging platforms, I assume whatever their messaging platform of the month is that it is peer to peer encrypted as well.
And you know what happens when you assume….
Considering that in both Google's Hangouts & Skype, you can see the messages on multiple devices, and even in alternative clients such as Purple/Pidgin, there's almost no way it could be E2E/P2P encrypted. The only way that might be feasible is if the key is based on your password or other personal information shared amongst the clients, and never renegotiated, and while I'm no expert in this area, that seems like it would be pretty weak already.
So, while we're backdooring encryption in accordance with these "concerns", we should also be backdooring all your military encryption products, right?
After all, military officers are perfectly capable of breaking the law and accessing child exploitation material too (not to mention the whole "war crimes" category of bad-person-actions that don't tend to be available to civilians). It would be awful to create a situation where the best thing for a pedo to do is join the military so that he can access un-backdoored-encryption, because please, won't somebody think of the children...right?
So the obvious solution is to also backdoor all five-eyes military encryption, right?
You say it can be done without compromising cyber security, so you should have no problem with that...
Betcha Ghislaine Maxwell gets a pardon from Trump. Kyle Rittenhouse too. Those 13 terrorists that tried to kidnap Governor Gretchen Whitmer and kill police, blow up bridges etc.? Pardon x 13.
The usual excuses for surveillance, "think of the children" and "protect against terrorists" are mighty weak right now where the man in charge kidnaps kids from their parents at the border in open defiance of a court ruling, and the domestic terrorists are just following his tweets and his rants on Fox News.
Who said this? a) A potential domestic terrorist, or b) a Trump appointee, or c) a Putin henchman?
"And when Donald Trump refuses to stand down at the inauguration, the shooting will begin...The drills that you've seen are nothing. "If you carry guns, buy ammunition, ladies and gentlemen, because it's going to be hard to get."
a) b) AND c), the guy is all three.
" Caputo moved to Russia in 1994, ...He worked for Gazprom Media in 2000 where he worked on improving the image of Vladimir Putin in the U.S."
Would Barr allow this guys encrypted comms to be intercepted as a potential domestic terrorist? Even if his comms is to Barr's boss Trump? What if its encrypted comms to his old boss Putin?
Trump can't refuse to stand down at the end of his term. The president's term ends at the end of the president's term regardless of what the president wants or does. A US president does not stand down at the end of his term, his term ends and he ceases to be president with no interaction on his part at all.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020