[aaronmhatch]

I agree: that is a contemptible position to take - and it's not mine.

It's impossible to make authority infallible and incorruptible. However, the United States has proven that it is possible to create a society of checks and balances with a sufficient justice system that works in favor of the citizen. Home search and seizure seems to generally go well. Why aren't there groups speaking up about it?

Just so I'm clear, do you disagree with Amnesty International's suggestions for restricted encryption?

[WalterSear]

>However, the United States has proven that it is possible to create a society of checks and balances with a sufficient justice system that works in favor of the citizen. Home search and seizure seems to generally go well. Why aren't there groups speaking up about it?

Wow!? What makes you think any of that? Or did you miss a negative there? :)

Yes, I am against the assumption that backdoors are a good idea, whoever puts it forward, and whatever you try to call them.

[aaronmhatch]

> Wow!? What makes you think any of that?

My experience living in the United States and researching other countries has given me that perspective.

> Yes, I am against the assumption that backdoors are a good idea, whoever puts it forward, and whatever you try to call them.

So, you do disagree with Amnesty International's recommendations for restricted encryption. That's fine, but I hope you also disagree with the government being allowed to enter our homes with a warrant.

[osivertsson]

Aaron, I have only read the executive summary of the briefing from Amnesty International you reference, but I fail to see that they make any suggestion for restricted encryption.

Can you please clearly cite what in that briefing makes you conclude this?

[aaronmhatch]

Here's the direct link to the briefing: https://www.indybay.org/uploads/2016/03/31/encryption_a_matt...

Restrictions are discussed in section 4, page 25.

Their recommendations are in part 5, page 31:

"any restrictions on encryption must be contained in laws that are precise and transparent, must be used only when necessary to achieve a legitimate aim and must not discriminate against specific individuals or groups. Critically, any measure interfering with encryption must be proportionate to achieving the legitimate aim for which it is imposed, and the benefits gained through the adoption of such measure must not be outweighed by the harm caused, including to individuals and network infrastructure and security."

[osivertsson]

...and I still fail to see where in this Amnesty International recommends restricting encryption.

The use of 'any' does not imply recommendation. I guess you could interpret the 'only when necessary' part as maybe opening the door to restrictions on encryption, but I feel Amnesty International's wording here intentionally wants us to really consider the drawbacks.

[aaronmhatch]

I agree that Amnesty International is being extremely cautious in making recommendations, but if they felt that no compromises could / should be made, I don't see why they would bother with the quoted paragraph.

"any restrictions on encryption must be contained in laws that are precise and transparent"

^ This suggests that they think restrictions are possible, whereas many pro-encryption people think that restrictions are mathematically impossible and are stupid to even suggest.

"must be used only when necessary to achieve a legitimate aim"

^ Again, while there is no specific recommendation, they are implicitly suggesting that restrictions are acceptable under certain conditions.

"any measure interfering with encryption must be proportionate to achieving the legitimate aim for which it is imposed, and the benefits gained through the adoption of such measure must not be outweighed by the harm caused, including to individuals and network infrastructure and security."

^ Same thing. In three separate places, they suggest that restrictions are permissible, and they are making recommendations for when they may be permissible.