undefined | Better HN

0 pointsbheadmaster2y ago0 comments

> And I agree that the idea that any group of people anywhere can communicate in near perfect secrecy about whatever they want is a little scary

The problem is, short of banning encryption altogether, you cannot prevent people from communicating in near perfect secrecy. If a criminal (or neo-Nazi, or homophobic, or whatever scapegoat you want to use) organization wants to communicate secretly, they will have means of doing so. All it takes is single programmer to write the custom application, and a single AWS instance to relay the data.

By banning Telegram or enforcing government rules, you're only taking away privacy from ordinary folks, while doing effectively nothing to those who you're claiming to fight against.

...and no, this is not an argument for banning encryption. I hope that part is obvious.

0 comments

nathan_compton2y ago

It is pretty easy to imagine a world where all manufactured hardware is compromised by default so that the state can access it. In some ways were close to that already. That said, you're point is good. The dedicated person can probably achieve pretty good privacy except in the most powerful regimes.

bheadmasterOP2y ago

Even that wouldn't stop the most dedicated, which are most likely exactly the ones you're trying to stop.

As long as embedded devices exist, you can write a QR reader/writer + encryptor/decryptor on an embedded device with a camera/display, and use the compromised devices as just a transport layer for encrypted QR coded messages.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse