Comment by rgbrenner | Hacker News Reader

Comment by rgbrenner | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I can't tell if you're for or against backdoors with that statement. Either way, I disagree. I don't think those for or against it are dumb people.

They're just in a different position... In the DOJ, encryption gets in the way of their job--catching criminals... while the penalties for a backdoor fall on others (those responsible for the data). There's no downside to them personally (and very little for the DOJ itself) for getting a backdoor.

The opposite is true for those not in the DOJ... the protection for our data is compromised.. and in exchange, the DOJ is able to prosecute some criminal we've never known, met, or had any contact with.

To those in the DOJ who deal with criminals everyday, their ability to prosecute criminals is of the upmost importance to them personally... and for the rest of us, unless we're a victim of a crime, there's only downsides to a backdoor.

>There's no downside to them personally (and very little for the DOJ itself) for getting a backdoor.

There is if the people in the DOJ suffer from identity theft and get their bank accounts cleaned out because some nefarious people exploited the backdoors.

Except legislation requiring backdoors will either exempt systems used by government workers of a certain level, or provide much higher penalties if those workers experience a breach.

That only works if the government is going to set up its own bank for use by government employees.

> There is if the people in the DOJ suffer from identity theft and get their bank accounts cleaned out because some nefarious people exploited the backdoors

People in the DOJ have more options available to them if they choose to try to find or punish an identity thief than the general public.

Also, the direct fear of not being able to do your job because of strong encryption is more focused than a nebulous fear of possible identity theft.

I was thrown by the "dumb people", not having got that from the parent comment. Then I realized I'd read "high levels of intelligence" in the sense of "military intelligence" rather than IQ. I think my initial reading was the intended one, but I'm not sure.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com