Great, now there's 'responsible encryption'
engadget.com
engadget.com
I wholeheartedly embrace responsible encryption: designs which are both secure and easy to use.
Because there are only two types of encryptions: Ones that work, ones that don't.
It's a none or everyone deal: Once an encrypt algorithm got cracked, everyone can then access to the encrypted data.
"responsible encryption", ha! why don't call it "illusional encryption"
But hey, as the world's about to destroy Net Neutrality and overturn Roe v Wade, why not. Tis the season for terrible ideas and throwing away decades of progress.
> If companies are permitted to create law-free zones for their customers,
> citizens should understand the consequences. When police cannot access
> evidence, crime cannot be solved. Criminals cannot be stopped and
> punished. There is an alternative. Responsible encryption can protect
> privacy and promote security without forfeiting access for legitimate
> law enforcement needs supported by judicial approval.
>
> Technology companies almost certainly will not develop responsible
> encryption if left to their own devices. Competition will fuel a
> mindset that leads them to produce products that are more and more
> impregnable. That will give criminals and terrorists more opportunities
> to cause harm with impunity. Sounding the alarm about the dark side of
> technology is not popular. Everyone who speaks candidly about “going
> dark” faces attacks by advocates of absolute privacy.
>
> Some advocates are motivated by profit. Others demonstrate sincere
> concern about the benefits of privacy. They are not concerned about
> preserving law enforcement capabilities. Those of us who swear to
> protect the rule of law have a different motivation. We are obliged to
> speak the truth.
>
> The truth is that “going dark” threatens to disable law enforcement and
> enable criminals and terrorists to operate with impunity.
>
> Allow me to conclude with this thought: There is no constitutional right
> to sell warrant-proof encryption. If our society chooses to let
> businesses sell technologies that shield evidence even from court
> orders, it should be a fully-informed decision.
-- Pitt the Younger, 1783 (shortly before becoming Prime Minister of Great Britain)
> If companies are permitted to create law-free zones for their customers, citizens should understand the consequences. When police cannot access evidence, crime cannot be solved. Criminals cannot be stopped and punished. There is an alternative. Responsible encryption can protect privacy and promote security without forfeiting access for legitimate law enforcement needs supported by judicial approval.
> Technology companies almost certainly will not develop responsible encryption if left to their own devices. Competition will fuel a mindset that leads them to produce products that are more and more impregnable. That will give criminals and terrorists more opportunities to cause harm with impunity. Sounding the alarm about the dark side of technology is not popular. Everyone who speaks candidly about “going dark” faces attacks by advocates of absolute privacy.
> Some advocates are motivated by profit. Others demonstrate sincere concern about the benefits of privacy. They are not concerned about preserving law enforcement capabilities. Those of us who swear to protect the rule of law have a different motivation. We are obliged to speak the truth.
> The truth is that “going dark” threatens to disable law enforcement and enable criminals and terrorists to operate with impunity.
> Allow me to conclude with this thought: There is no constitutional right to sell warrant-proof encryption. If our society chooses to let businesses sell technologies that shield evidence even from court orders, it should be a fully-informed decision.
That is simply, and trivially proved to be, untrue.