DOJ: Strong encryption that we don’t have access to is “unreasonable”

Re:DOJ: Strong encryption that we don’t have access to is “u... by saas_co_de on Friday November 10, 2017 @08:21AM (#15669657)

Interesting example. Transport encryption provides basically no real world security at all. The fact of the matter is that there are hundreds of millions of credit cards with full PII available for sale so it is almost certain that whatever PII you are sending over your highly secure connection is already in the hands of criminals.

The only security you have is the fact that there aren't nearly enough criminals to exploit all of the info that has already been stolen so there is a very low chance that you will be a victim of identity theft, but it has nothing to do with transport layer encryption.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:DOJ: Strong encryption that we don’t have access to is “u... by willstrafach on Friday November 10, 2017 @03:02PM (#15672499)

For random criminals, you are right, ROI is low. But Data in Transit protection is essential to prevent targeted attacks, whether it is attempt at data interception or whacking your device with an exploit to steal information off it (continuously if desired).

It may not be in everyone’s threat model, but it is definitely very important and provides real world security.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:DOJ: Strong encryption that we don’t have access to is “u... by datavirtue on Friday November 10, 2017 @11:40AM (#15671041)

"The only security you have is the fact that there aren't nearly enough criminals to exploit all of the info that has already been stolen"

This is pretty much the case, to include security vulnerabilities in most systems as well. Most just are not exploited because their arent enough criminals with enough time.

[ Parent | on HN ]