Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by me_again 2524 days ago
They can issue as many decrees as they like but they can't solve the problem with decrees any more than they can decree that water is dry. All they can decree is that it is illegal to use effective encryption, which would be, um, unfortunate.
2 comments
yawboakye 2524 days ago
You have a point. By decree what I meant was that in the event of a disaster and panic the public will back any law that forces, say, Apple to give unfettered access to law enforcement. By then it's too late to engage in debates. The public became interested and very unforgivenly sided with law enforcement. They'd have prioritized their safety over being able to send cat pictures securely. Similar to 9/11.
link
redisman 2524 days ago
Breaking encryption would cause breaches orders of magnitude more catastrophic than encrypted communications between bad guys.
link
yawboakye 2524 days ago
See it this way: we have to know what the bad guys are saying in order to be able to protect the public. The way I see it the US government (and governments around the world) will make this a non-negotiable objective. There's not a lot of pressure now because, as Barr said, the event that will turn the public against encryption hasn't arrived yet. If the parties involved don't find a solution in the meantime they'd be forced to weaken encryption for everyone when a catastrophe happens. The public is fickle. Our safety is paramount.
link
inetknght 2524 days ago
> we have to know what the bad guys are saying in order to be able to protect the public

Why do you think that?

link