Encryption is the only thing that forces law enforcement to use warrants, without it it's just a wild wild west of privacy abuse. I do hope we see more services crop up, and new methods for people to encrypt email outside of specific services, maybe better plugins for Thunderbird or something, hell I'd easily pay for such a plugin if someone else can communicate back and forth with me through it and it is encrypted. Maybe even some sort of forward secrecy involved in the system.
It's not necessary for the Thunderbird team to do it, there are paid plugins for Thunderbird. I'd happily pay for a decent plugin if it is developed properly.
We generally accept that warrants are a reasonable solution when it comes to the state entering private property without permission for law enforcement purposes.
This also seems like a reasonable solution for encryption. The state here is not making or trying to make encryption illegal; and it is open about the fact that court authorisation is required to enforce a backdoor.
The reason that breaks down is that a backdoor to achieve this isn’t for that one case, it’s for everyone on the service (or easily made to be). It’s like getting permission to break every lock from a particular manufacturer, rather than permission to enter one particular home.
I know in this particular case they’ve said it’s for a singular mailbox. I’m curious how they achieve it.
This is the same as the TSA lock in newly made luggage. In order for Americans to have their luggage inspected, the Europeans have to have a backdoor into their luggage.
Fortunately in Europe you can add a layer of security on top of that by adding new locks.
I mean when you think about it in the grand scheme of things luggage isn't secure anyway, you can just cut through the fabric and other materials if you're so inclined to steal someones belongings from their luggage.
You can also just push a pen through the zipper to open it without leaving any evidence. Simply run both locked-together sliders back over the zipper to close it.
This sounds more like the analogy breaking down than illustrating a meaningful difference in scenarios. The police already /can/ break a lock from just about any manufacturer. They just break the door down and enter regardless of the phenomenal quality of the lock itself.
> We generally accept that warrants are a reasonable solution
"We" accept nothing. The state can't execute warrants to get at what's inside people's minds. Computers are extensions of people's minds and I expect them to be equally inviolable.
Also, even if it does have lawful access to the system, the state is not entitled to finding usable evidence.
> it is open about the fact that court authorisation is required to enforce a backdoor
There mere possibility of a court-mandated backdoor means the entire system is already compromised and it's impossible to trust it.
If you want your opinion to be taken seriously or be seen as credible, you should probably back it up of justify in some way, rather than just stating it as if it is a fact. The thing is, I agree with you but I understand that it is not the general opinion of most people. I think it is important to explain and justify the very significant shift in thinking about what is “the mind”.
> You misrepresented what I said by removing the conditional part of the sentence - that's a misquote.
That wasn't my intention. I just didn't want to reproduce the whole post in my reply.
> So then you should trust literally no software or hardware.
I give free software the benefit of the doubt. I don't trust hardware. It sucks that hardware costs billions to manufacture. Centralized resources are easily targeted by governments. Maybe someday we'll have 3D printing technology that makes it possible for hackers to create their own chips at home.
