I've read so many arguments advocating strong encryption, all of which I agree with, and many of them are simplified as best we techies can - check out some of Troy Hunt's posts. But even avoiding the tech aspect completely, there is one thing the government simply refuses to accept.
Banning strong encryption will not stop people using it.
It will stop the 'good' and generally innocent populace using it and severely infringe on their right to privacy, but the 'bad' people will just fork an open-source messaging system that uses E2E encryption and start using that.
As commented in the article, strong encryption cannot be 'de-invented' now it's out in the open. Each and every one of these government statements is a drastically oversimplified knee-jerk reaction to the problem. Bet they think they can get tech companies to implement RFC 3514 to stop hackers.
I think the strongest argument for an American audience who is unfamiliar with technology is that encryption should be included under second amendment rights.
"Guns don't hurt people, people hurt people", "blaming the manufacturer for the actions of the operator", "even if we ban them, bad guys will still use them", etc.
If the right to bear arms is defined as the right to protection against totalitarian government I would think that encryption falls into that bucket.
Maybe we should get the NRA involved in this argument...
If one accepts that part of the intent of the Second Amendment was to allow citizens to defend themselves against a tyrannical government (but please, let's not start the usual argument about asymmetric warfare), strong encryption capabilities would certainly be an important component of that in the modern era.
But that's just my stance, as someone who likes guns and crypto.
In most of the US, no registration or license is required to legally own a gun, and the Federal government is barred from attempting to create a registry.
> It will stop the 'good' and generally innocent populace using it and severely infringe on their right to privacy, but the 'bad' people will just fork an open-source messaging system that uses E2E encryption and start using that.
And that would be the point of the ban - anyone using E2E is bad therefore, gov attacks them.
People smart enough to do this are also smart enough to anonymise their online identity. Banning it will just push the determined further beyond the reach of the security services. Services will either become peer-to-peer (and therefore un-interceptible) or use servers hosted in countries where our governments have no sway. The politicians want the playground to be supervised, but they're going to wind up with no-one in it.
Rather than the dragnet approach favoured by the NSA and an increasing number of politicians, security services need to properly investigate targetted individuals. The panopticon approach is never going to work.
Banning strong encryption will not stop people using it.
It will stop the 'good' and generally innocent populace using it and severely infringe on their right to privacy, but the 'bad' people will just fork an open-source messaging system that uses E2E encryption and start using that.
As commented in the article, strong encryption cannot be 'de-invented' now it's out in the open. Each and every one of these government statements is a drastically oversimplified knee-jerk reaction to the problem. Bet they think they can get tech companies to implement RFC 3514 to stop hackers.