But each improvement in communications tech (landlines, mobile phones, internet) have enabled new, faster, easier, better communication methods. Medieval criminals would have to physically meet to coordinate a coach robbery; nowadays a terrorist attack can be coordinated fully remotely and anonymously. There is no point in denying the facts - that encryption and the ease of use of the Internet enable criminals to coordinate more easily. Sweeping it under the rug won't change it, and it will be a part in the reasoning for limiting encryption. It should be fought with numbers and the gravity and the tradeoffs, not "people used to be able to communicate with pidgeons so there is no issue here".
How will you enforce 'limiting encryption'? Will you prosecute everyone who runs a few mathematical calculations on their own computers, presuming guilt?
Do you think that criminals will care that it is 'illegal' to send messages when they're plotting more heinous acts? In such a scenario you'll have to radically enforce what programs may or may not be run on everyone's computer. If you do that, you're worse than the criminals.
> Do you think that criminals will care that it is 'illegal'
If that sort of logic were to be applied what's the point in any law? Deterrence, making it harder, and punishment. Rolling your own crypto is hard, just like building your own gun for a robbery is. Not impossible, but it will certainly deter less motivated individuals. If all crypto was broken with law enforcement owned escrow keys (not in any way advocating for this, just playing devil's advocate, criminals would know not to rely on it and would have to first build a reliable safe method of communication (like physical meetings). Not the end of the world, just a deterrent.
> In such a scenario you'll have to radically enforce what programs may or may not be run on everyone's computer. If you do that, you're worse than the criminals.
That's a wild exaggeration. All sorts of things radically enforce what software can run on anyone's computer (DRM, antiviruses, licenses, etc.) and that's not great, but comparing that to an actual violent crime for instance is just stupid and honestly insulting.
Can't the authorities do what they've always done since time immemorial: monitor these activities from afar (without needing to know specifically what was said), and plant people in these organizations.
Compromising everyone's security to target a few seems backwards.
They are doing that, this scales to ~100-1000s of people per state. I suspect that on the current trajectory they will need to monitor far more and they are dealing with technology that most likely has been compromised by the US but not them.
They are monitoring people in person its just that they also want to break encryption. Why not have it all?
Let's not forget, that the government is doing this to keep us nice and safe. It knows what 'nice' really means, and what 'safe' is too! (You don't)
Sometimes it needs to keep you safe even from yourself!!
So, it turns out, that government (an imaginary concept that only exists in our minds) actually cares about us even more than we care about ourselves! Right?
Without encryption, criminals will have even easier time stealing personal information and breaking into accounts. Limiting encryption use may hurt certain types of criminals, but also helps another types of criminals, mainly cyber criminals.
A huge chunk of things are already encrypted in that sense - the data for all big tech companies for example is encrypted in transit, decrypted, analyzed etc. on their servers, and then encrypted again when saved to disk and not immediately used for anything. You'd have to compromise both their at rest data storage and the storage for their local decryption keys to steal useful data. That does mean that data on a provider that is thoroughly compromised is vulnerable, and that you obviously have to trust the provider itself, and judging from the recent NYT article (and Google's reputation wrt closed accounts in general) at least Google is not at all worth that trust.
End to end encryption / Trust No One encryption setups are much simpler in that regard - only you have the keys, so you don't have to worry nearly so much about the provider being compromised or just not giving a fuck about paying customers. Plus you just don't have to worry about monitor people creeping on your photos and such.
I think all the legislations proposed have been for backdoored encryption, not a blanket ban on encryption, under the (probably extremely naive) assumption that encryption can be backdoored only for law enforcement use and nobody else would be capable of exploiting that.
> There is no point in denying the facts - that encryption and the ease of use of the Internet enable everyone to coordinate more easily.
Since it’s easier for everyone, it’s also easier for criminals. But we don’t have to deny it to everyone just because the subset of people called criminals benefit too.
Encrytion was used since forever and birds as a fast transportation too. Nothing changed. And btw if i where a terrorist i would use birds to communicate. What do we learn? Criminals will always find a way, instantly.
