If the export of cryptography is restricted due to it being considered a munition, would it be possible to mount a legal defense of citizen cryptography based on the Second Amendment?
On the fun side, when youâre on another continent, it can make you a weapons smuggler from the comfort of your bed.
One of the few petitions Iâve actually gone so far as to sign. Iâm not so much worried about three letter agencies as the obvious if âunintendedâ fallout back doors would yield.
Iâm not sure I understand. If one already uses strong crypto, what would the law require? Forget your password? Delete your encryption hardware? Would it be a crime to create your own algorithm?
So VPNs would be part of this backdoor program? ⌠asking for a friend 
I think it has been stated or at least implied by the USSD that it a crime now to email or upload the .stl or gcode of a firearm without an export license, at least a currently 3d printable one.
(BTW, who thinks the heart should turn into a broken heart or something so we donât forgetfully double-like a post and end up accidentally un-liking it.)
Heart turns pink, bro.
oh-damnit!
Like my cheeksâŚ
I dunno, I find my like/un-like cycles oddly satisfying⌠did I really like that? Do I like it enough to like it again?! I donât know!
Yes, please fight this, america. Then cameron wonât have a trough to sniff in when trying to support crypto backdoors. So to speak.
GCHQ probably own most of the hardware in country let alone the networks. I just assume everything is visible.
Thereâs also the idea that we attack the problem at its root instead of constantly hacking at the growing, attacking limbs.
Bernie Sanders Rips NSA Spying and Pushes for End to Mass Surveillance
Where are the âfree speech / censorshipâ trolls?
Right to Encrypt
On the Internet everything is a right.
Oh yes indeed. As well as beam splitters on the fibre coming in to and going out of the country but surely not visible if we have strong non-compromised crypto and encrypt everything.
Donât we have the right to use math? Even if sometimes some bunch of geezers who by some accident happen to make âlawsâ insist otherwise?
That would be the crux of the matter, aye.
With so much power to intervene at so many points of ingress, I wonder if such a thing is truly possible.
There are powers on both sides of the issue. And the math itself is impartial and, in case of schemes not based on probability (RNGs, I am looking at YOU!), verifiable. Then there are the implementation issues, which will never be fully bulletproof but the attack vectors can be mitigated in a multitude of ways.
Totally nonbreakable crypto is not possible, Iâd say, if we take the implementation and users into the question.
It should be however fairly possible to make its breaking impractical in terms of effort and money spent.
And then there is steganography, or, how to hide the encrypted data in plain view. Because the adversary cannot freak out over something they donât see.
yup and yup.
Potentially a single individual (or a group of people with absolute trust in one another) could design and implement crypto in total secrecy but it would have to be perfect crypto in perfect secrecy and implemented on totally non-compromised hardware and then used by non-compromised people on non-compromised hardware in non-compromised locations and even then, I have to imagine that there is still lots of signal leakage somewhere along the pipeline.
Iâm awful rusty with this sort of stuff so, question: if you âownâ the hardware that is encrypting the sentence/chunk or otherwise have methods for listening to it remotely without having direct, physical ingress to it, can you reverse engineer the encryption protocol with enough data? (Maybe even just for specific data packets/chunks/whatevs)
