Interpol plans to condemn encryption spread, citing predators

Re:Interpol plans to condemn encryption spread, citing preda... by tqi on Monday November 18, 2019 @12:03AM (#21562026)

Also I think "Security" was the wrong term to use - maybe "Societal Order" is better?

What I mean is if companies are required to build in law enforcement backdoors, we could see X benefit (ie some % reduction in certain types of crime) and Y damage (some reduction in technical security, some reduction in govt accountability, etc).

Personally, I place a lot of value on the Y damage, so I don't think the tradeoff is worth it. But those are just my values, and I think it's possible / reasonable to have different values that change the balance.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Interpol plans to condemn encryption spread, citing preda... by stjohnswarts on Tuesday November 19, 2019 @04:30PM (#21578520)

> reply

The problem isn't that it's algebraic though. There are no back doors, once governments have it then all your freedom to communicate against them is broken. I don't know why anyone would look at the likes of world leaders such as Xi, Putin, KJI and Trump and think this is a good idea in any way.

[ Parent | on HN ]