It is really simple. You can’t be a little bit pregnant, you can’t be partially dead, and you can’t be mostly secure. You either are or are not. Any back door for law enforcement, would be stolen, distributed, and exploited within weeks of it’s being introduced.
Since all encryption is breakable given enough time and resource, then by your logic none of us are secure. Your comment about the backdoor would then be somewhat moot, as the implementation would define the potential (or lack thereof) for exploitation by bad faith actors.
Good article. It made me think about how both of the duopoly parties in the USA went right along with establishing the security theatre of the TSA.
Americans basically bought into the TSA entirely, despite it being proven ineffective, a violation of our civil liberties, a violation of the constitution, and an absolutely unnecessary added exposure to radiation. And that last bit is constantly supported by telling people it’s a “safe” level, despite there being no such thing as a “safe” dose of ionizing radiation.
If you have to get X-rays for a medical diagnostic, then you take that risk based on the promise of getting useful data. The so-called security screening of the TSA offers people no such compensation for medically unnecessary X-ray exposure.
I think this anti-encryption thing is more of the same. Plus, it’s also lazy agencies who want their jobs made easier, regardless of how it impacts everyone else. There’s a lot of “us vs them” thinking in law enforcement, and that’s a very bad thing.
Good article. It made me think about how both of the duopoly parties in the USA went right along with establishing the security theatre of the TSA.
Americans basically bought into the TSA entirely, despite it being proven ineffective, a violation of our civil liberties, a violation of the constitution, and an absolutely unnecessary added exposure to radiation. And that last bit is constantly supported by telling people it’s a “safe” level, despite there being no such thing as a “safe” dose of ionizing radiation.
If you have to get X-rays for a medical diagnostic, then you take that risk based on the promise of getting useful data. The so-called security screening of the TSA offers people no such compensation for medically unnecessary X-ray exposure.
Agreed. The use of X-ray backscatter scanners (powered by ionizing radiation) was a terrible mistake. It later came out the levels of radiation the TSA and manufacturers cited was bogus. Europe never allowed them, due to the tangible health detriment (ioninzing radiation damages DNA, mutates genes, etc)...The TSA eventually replaced them w/ millimeter wave radio scanners, but never admitted to there ever being a health concern, which there absolutely was. Typical bureaucrats.
Comments
I mean, if they're not doing anything wrong, why would they object to me just checking up on them periodically?
Americans basically bought into the TSA entirely, despite it being proven ineffective, a violation of our civil liberties, a violation of the constitution, and an absolutely unnecessary added exposure to radiation. And that last bit is constantly supported by telling people it’s a “safe” level, despite there being no such thing as a “safe” dose of ionizing radiation.
If you have to get X-rays for a medical diagnostic, then you take that risk based on the promise of getting useful data. The so-called security screening of the TSA offers people no such compensation for medically unnecessary X-ray exposure.
I think this anti-encryption thing is more of the same. Plus, it’s also lazy agencies who want their jobs made easier, regardless of how it impacts everyone else. There’s a lot of “us vs them” thinking in law enforcement, and that’s a very bad thing.
There is no easy way out of this that GOV thinks they can contain...
2¢