Reply to post: Re: No, it's not settled

WWW daddy Sir Tim Berners-Lee stands up for end-to-end crypto

Adam 52 Silver badge

Re: No, it's not settled

"For avoidance of doubt, you don't dissuade people who are or are intending to break laws by providing them with more laws to break."

Yes you do. It's why, for example, the UK has historically had very low gun crime; we used to punish it harshly. Don't forget it's also how Peter Sutcliffe (false numberplate) got caught and severely restricted Al Capone's activities.

"In other words those who intend to use strong encryption as an aid to breaking the law will source it from somewhere - the algorithms are not a big secret."

And - if you have total surveillance - they will then stick out like a big sore thumb. Making them very easy to arrest and prosecute. Also making it dramatically easier to prosecute for *something*. To reuse Phil Zimmerman's metaphor, if everyone uses postcards then anyone with a envelope is suspicious, especially if you ban envelopes.

So the debate shouldn't be about whether this will work, it will, but whether it will have massive downsides and is morally corrupt. That would be an adult debate, not that you'll find much here.

"You do not make the public more secure by weakening encryption, you make them less secure"

You change the balance. You make them marginally more secure against terrorists and people the state doesn't like. You make them dramatically less secure against the state, white collar criminals, corporations, tabloid journalists and other states.

Bleating on about you can't change the maths is stupid. Nobody wants to change the maths. They want to weaken protections whatever the cost.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon