[close04]

The guy’s logic is “if only we had allowed a small backdoor from the start they wouldn’t be forced to install a large backdoor now”. Other technologies that were open to the law were endlessly abused for surveillance.

His theory is bunk, there is absolutely no middle ground to be had with the people who want a backdoor. There are no small backdoors.

[inigyou]

What do you consider a backdoor though? Saying that devices must have parental controls isn't a backdoor. Saying that devices must scan your ID is a backdoor to break anonymity, but is he saying that?

If we had parental controls that actually worked it would forestall any talk about ID scanning because parents could just enable parental controls.

[close04]

Even the article talks about this. The backdoor is when there’s no E2EE - he speaks of the “absolute right to privacy” which the proposed age verification solution wouldn’t breach in any way, so it’s actually the loss of encryption. It’s when a legal and technical framework are put in place to do age verification which can be switched to identity verification in a blink of an eye. It’s when cryptographically attested software is the only way to use the internet which even the author, as a suporter of the upsides, knows what it implies on the downside.