U.S. Encryption Ban Would Force Companies To Migrate, Say Researchers

Status
Not open for further replies.

canadianvice

Distinguished
While I hate to use the gun nut line.... if private citizens don't have crypto, (there's no way to prevent them acquiring it) because they abide by the law - their information won't be useful.

The people who are criminals, however, by definition have no respect for law, and so they will use strong encryption and literally no positive purpose for law enforcement under liberty will be served.

Of course, I think we're beyond pretense now that this is to enforce the law under the standards of liberty.
 

alidan

Splendid
Aug 5, 2009
5,303
0
25,780
0
While I hate to use the gun nut line.... if private citizens don't have crypto, (there's no way to prevent them acquiring it) because they abide by the law - their information won't be useful.

The people who are criminals, however, by definition have no respect for law, and so they will use strong encryption and literally no positive purpose for law enforcement under liberty will be served.

Of course, I think we're beyond pretense now that this is to enforce the law under the standards of liberty.
yea, but by that logic, we have a net on the internet right now, you use encrypted anything, its likely to be known, cracked, probably not, but known where its coming from... so if only the criminals use encryption, then you know right where to go.

that said, even if my argument holds water, i want everyone to have encryption that no current machine can crack bruteforce, i literally don't care if there is a 9/11 2 in the works, stop impeding on my rights and my security because you are 50+ years old and think the internet is magic.
 

targetdrone

Distinguished
Mar 26, 2012
314
6
18,785
0
Hypothetically writing lets say The US and UK get the backdoor they so desire for all encryption(there was an article just a few days back the UK wanted all government encrypted communications to have a backdoor).

Now fast forward a few years when Snowden 2.0 Service Pack 666 gives the world that unlock code. Oh the Chaos will be epic.
 

targetdrone

Distinguished
Mar 26, 2012
314
6
18,785
0
I can't believe encryption back-doors are even being proposed.
It's a lot easier to propose this dribble than hold Government employees responsible for failing to do their jobs. These recent encryption ban proposes came as a result of the Paris and California terrorist attacks yet those terrorist transmitted everything in the open.
 

tamalero

Distinguished
Oct 25, 2006
900
4
18,995
1
Hypothetically writing lets say The US and UK get the backdoor they so desire for all encryption(there was an article just a few days back the UK wanted all government encrypted communications to have a backdoor).

Now fast forward a few years when Snowden 2.0 Service Pack 666 gives the world that unlock code. Oh the Chaos will be epic.
There are backdoors already in effect and some of them already backfired on the NSA/CIA.

Noone remembers the Juniper Firewall hacking?
They were supposedly hacked using their own supposed backdoor techniques.

Then later I remember another company that used a backdoor NSA approved security system, was also breached.

 

Astone3145

Reputable
Jan 26, 2016
4
0
4,510
0
"It is completely technologically unworkable for individual states to mandate different encryption standards in consumer products," Lieu told Reuters in an interview. "Apple can't make a different smartphone for California and New York and the rest of the country."

Try telling that to the companies that make lawnmowers and trimmers with CA specific emissions. Next time you go to home depot or lowes notice the stickers on all the lawn equipment that says not for sale or use in CA.
 

California is a big enough market that it's cost-effective to create a special design just for sale in California. If every state tried to mandate its own (different) emissions standards though, a lot of automakers would just give up and stop selling cars in the smaller states. At some point, the total cost to design and test the vehicles to pass a state's standards exceeds the expected profit of all your vehicle sales in that state.

That said, it's a lot easier to special case software than it is physical hardware. Heck, the Win 7 install DVDs were all identical, it was just your serial code which determined if the product activated as Home Premium or Professional or Ultimate.
 

big_tiger

Distinguished
Jul 20, 2010
44
0
18,530
0
When I was naive about what all was in the patriot act, I was for it. Now all I need to know is they want to call this bill the "Cyber-Patriot Act."

F no, H no, get off my lawn, if you want in my S get a warrant or hack my encryption!!!
 

xHDx

Honorable
Nov 11, 2012
55
0
10,630
0
This will just be the outcome of a sum easier to calculate than 2+2. You give idiots power, and you get... well... nothing out of it.

Even if this was to come into power, it won't go anywhere. It will never really take an effect. The public won't abide by it and there's no real punishment surely. The Government can't mass surveilance and act upon every device or person breaking the law. It's just not going to work.

As for Back-doors, good with that. There's only 1 lock for every door, but when that door is hiding personal info and secret government data with thousands of eyes gazing through the key hole, it's gonna be cracked one way or another as others have said
 

COLGeek

Cybernaut
Moderator
U.S. Encryption Ban Would Force Companies To Migrate, Say Researchers....and it would make ZERO difference in combating terrorism and would likely increase cybersecurity threats to Internet users worldwide. This is what happens when uninformed "leaders" take on an issue they simply do not understand. The multiple levels of unintended consequences of such a move would be catastrophic to global commerce and would not make anyone one tiny bit more secure. This is simply bad, terrible, awful planning and policy.
 

eriko

Distinguished
Mar 12, 2008
212
0
18,690
1
U.S. Encryption Ban Would Force Companies To Migrate, Say Researchers....and it would make ZERO difference in combating terrorism and would likely increase cybersecurity threats to Internet users worldwide. This is what happens when uninformed "leaders" take on an issue they simply do not understand. The multiple levels of unintended consequences of such a move would be catastrophic to global commerce and would not make anyone one tiny bit more secure. This is simply bad, terrible, awful planning and policy.

Nice to see someone awake here...
 

Astone3145

Reputable
Jan 26, 2016
4
0
4,510
0


So you're saying I'm right? CA and NY are large enough markets to justify "special designs". So doesn't that make his argument quite mute? After all, he pointed out two potential markets and then grouped the rest of the country together. As to not say that every state would have their own restrictions just those that can justify them.
 

I'm saying that his argument is right that this sort of thing is better handled with a single Federal standard. But that you are right that if a state is large enough, it is not that onerous to create a special design for it. Especially if the only difference is software.

Why does everyone want to be right at the expense of someone else being wrong? When different people hold different opinions about something, a lot of times it's because both people are right. In one situation one person is right, under slightly different circumstances the other person is right. Your point is right, but you are wrong to act as if the fact that his argument doesn't work for large states completely invalidates his argument.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS