• floofloof@lemmy.caOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    If that means compromising encryption, which it does, then the benefits to everyone of end-to-end encryption and the protection it affords against both government overreach/abuse and third-party intruders tend to outweigh the benefits of government surveillance through encryption backdoors.

    • SleafordMod@feddit.ukdeleted by creator
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Maybe only the biggest companies should be required to be able to decrypt certain messages if a court warrant is produced. Privacy fans could use services exempt from this requirement, like Signal. But there are laypeople who just use iMessage because it’s the default, and you could catch criminals sending bad stuff over iMessage.

      I think there are valid concerns on both sides of the argument… but I am just imagining if you have a group of violent people planning an attack over iMessage, I want law enforcement to be able to read those messages.

        • SleafordMod@feddit.ukdeleted by creator
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          I guess I think of it like bugging a phone. The technology for bugging phones has been around for a long time, but that doesn’t mean the authorities are bugging everybody’s phones all the time. Even if they can theoretically listen to everyone’s conversations, that doesn’t mean they are always listening. There would be too many conversations to listen to.

            • SleafordMod@feddit.ukdeleted by creator
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Maybe I should read more about encryption. I was thinking maybe a company like Apple could just keep the encryption keys stored somewhere. So if needed they could decrypt particular messages. There could be big punishments, prison time, for anybody within Apple who decrypts messages without a court warrant.

      • floofloof@lemmy.caOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Word would just get out that you should only use the secure services to communicate anything sensitive. We already have plenty of messaging services that are insecure, but enough people are preferring to use a secure option that it’s worrying the UK Government.

        • SleafordMod@feddit.ukdeleted by creator
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Maybe people just use what’s popular. Telegram is pretty popular in some countries even though I don’t think they have end-to-end encryption by default.

          Anyway I guess I don’t know what the answer is. Personally I would probably still use iMessage and WhatsApp even if I knew the companies behind them could potentially read my messages by decrypting them. If there’s a proper system in place so that messages are only read when there’s a court warrant, it’s probably unlikely my boring messages to friends and family would be spied on by anybody.

          Maybe I need to send more interesting messages and then I would care about the privacy of them a bit more.