I'm not sure how you can't take an absolutist view on it. Either you have encryption to keep things secure or you provide these escrow keys / backdoors that, once your enemies know about, are going to concentrate all their effort into getting (either by breaking it or through other means).
Meanwhile those who would not be using this encryption would be perfectly secure.
> This is really the gun debate all over again. But the same crowd seems to be on the other side this time.
I'm not sure what you mean by this line. I support the 2nd amendment and I think any backdoor or restrictions on encryption are insane. I'm very disappointed in leadership of both parties and encouraged by some outposts of sanity in both parties.
I would probably put it under the 1st rather than 2nd although I think a modern interpretation of the 3rd might have a slim shot.
4 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 19.7 ms ] threadMeanwhile those who would not be using this encryption would be perfectly secure.
The government either has a backdoor to our encrypted phones, or they don't.
This is really the gun debate all over again. But the same crowd seems to be on the other side this time.
I'm not sure what you mean by this line. I support the 2nd amendment and I think any backdoor or restrictions on encryption are insane. I'm very disappointed in leadership of both parties and encouraged by some outposts of sanity in both parties.
I would probably put it under the 1st rather than 2nd although I think a modern interpretation of the 3rd might have a slim shot.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11270529