"Kitchen knives" went too far to be an example. How about door locks?
I still don't get the idea that having a weakened security system could somehow benefit security. Based on many real-life hack stories I've heard, it's usually the "bad actors" who's taking advantage of unsecured apps to attack normal people, this is the very reason why developers are making apps more secure to begin with.
Another point is, insecured systems are usually easy to take control of (By injecting malwares payload into the brokenly-encrypted traffic for example), then "bad actors" can turn those systems to a trojan proxy. How does that help if you want to make things safe?
Last point: I know this is about big companies encryptions. But really, "Roll Your Own Encryption" is not that bad anymore if all other "secured-encryption" was bugged. And, really, roll your own encryption is not that hard today if your only goal is to annoy the FBI.
Real last point: Even if companies such as Google and Facebook did banned encryption, does that also prevents "bad actors" from using real encryption on top of their service? You can even send your nudes to me safely by encrypting it with my public key and publish the encrypted data here (Don't actually do that). The point is, even if you've successfully banned encryption in big companies, users will then just add a layer of encryption of their own, and that layer can be very very secure.
> The point is, even if you've successfully banned encryption in big companies, users will then just add a layer of encryption of their own, and that layer can be very very secure.
That's what projects like Maskbook do[1]. The problem with those is that the use of such technology can be detected, and thus the small number of users singled out. You'd need steganography for this principle to work, and AFAIK that's already what paranoid criminals are doing. So in reality making E2E encryption inconvenient only penalizes regular honest people.
Those user sticks out because system such as Maskbook was not designed to hide the fact that it carries encrypted data.
However, a system can be designed to do that with ease. You can encode data in video streams with Fourier transform, you can encode data using English words, you can put encrypted data as JEPG payload etc.
"Bad actors" will do whatever it takes to protect themselves from law enforcement, they'll kill the police in a blink if their account balanced out (On the same note, they can also join and control the police from within), let alone to learn to use encryption. It is the normal people who will feel most of the hurt, because after that they don't even have the protection against bad actors.
I still don't get the idea that having a weakened security system could somehow benefit security. Based on many real-life hack stories I've heard, it's usually the "bad actors" who's taking advantage of unsecured apps to attack normal people, this is the very reason why developers are making apps more secure to begin with.
Another point is, insecured systems are usually easy to take control of (By injecting malwares payload into the brokenly-encrypted traffic for example), then "bad actors" can turn those systems to a trojan proxy. How does that help if you want to make things safe?
Last point: I know this is about big companies encryptions. But really, "Roll Your Own Encryption" is not that bad anymore if all other "secured-encryption" was bugged. And, really, roll your own encryption is not that hard today if your only goal is to annoy the FBI.
Real last point: Even if companies such as Google and Facebook did banned encryption, does that also prevents "bad actors" from using real encryption on top of their service? You can even send your nudes to me safely by encrypting it with my public key and publish the encrypted data here (Don't actually do that). The point is, even if you've successfully banned encryption in big companies, users will then just add a layer of encryption of their own, and that layer can be very very secure.