This presupposes that the FBI’s war on encryption was ever about catching terrorists and criminals. Its purpose is, rather, to make it easier to spy on and harass people who’s politics you don’t like. There has never been any power granted to the FBI that they have not bent to this end.
I strongly suspect that most of the people who support giving them more power, rather than actually being unimaginably stupid enough to believe that they won’t abuse these powers the same way they’ve abused all of their other powers, actually like the idea of giving them more power to keep harassing and persecuting those pesky social justice activists.
Couldn’t the same reasoning be used to make the opposite case? The government won’t have any problem tracking us and surveilling our communications, because we’re freely sharing a lot of very revealing personal data and metadata to third parties, all day, every day, security be damned. Front door is already busted so don’t worry about the backdoors.
No, because making the opposite case requires direct violations of the first amendment to implement, in that if you forbid the use of strong encryption, there’s no reason anyone would ever use the government’s backdoored version.
or Fourth Amendment? And if so I believe the third-party doctrine covers that.
Yes, people would still use it because of convince.
But whether or not it’s good or bad, legal or illegal, is not what I was saying. I was curious about the argument itself. I just don’t follow the logic that there’s already so many ways to be tracked and logged is why it’s important to keep strong encryption on a few things.
Does it? What stops the terrorists from simply not getting Internet of Things devices, just the same as how crypto backdoors don’t stop terrorists from using alternate solutions? If anything, this paper already assumes that the gov intends to spy on all civillians rather than catch criminals and terrorists…
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.