I believe in some jurisdictions it is in some circumstances a crime, yes.
Encryption should be no more a crime than locking your house or storing your valuables in a safe.
They'll just make it a crime and pretend you were wrong all along. We're not playing by moral rules anymore.
And backdoored encryption is just as bad as unencrypted, maybe worse, since it lulls you into a false sense of security.
Mathematically worse.
Too bad the paper proclamation that is the constitution means nothing today
It's kind of integral to the function of enterprise?
The entire financial system literally relies on encryption
Lots of really critical stuff needs encryption, it's absolutely insane to try and ban it.
to try to* ban it
People lock their doors; everyone understands.
wHaT aRe ThEy HiDiNg!!??!1?
In China, basically every enterprise uses a VPN to get uncensored internet when needed.
It’s definitely not integral. You could just control the connection points. Ie, all your software tools on intranet and wired connection only. Any data can be decrypted.
No one can bank online without reliable encryption. No one can transact business online without reliable encryption.
You can actually. It just wouldn’t be encrypted.
Instead you just have to trust that anything you're doing is actually with who they claim to be. No encryption means no identity or security guarantee.
Closed systems don’t require encryption.
Are you stupid enough to actually think the Internet is a closed system?
No lmao. How did you get that from all the talk about radio transmission and encryption?
This specific thread is talking about transacting business and banking online. You should be more careful to keep your arguments separated. Otherwise you not only look like an idiot but you also prove you can't multitask for shit.
This specific thread is about criminality of encryption.
In which case anyone who wants to can read the message traffic and make changes to it before passing it on to the receiver.
No, you can't conduct business this way.
Thats why it would have to be a closed system with controlled transmissions rather than omnidirectional radio transmissions.
No, you are wildly incorrect for multiple reasons both technical and practical.
I'm not even going to waste any more of my time pointing out how intensely ridiculous your assertions are.
Please tell me banking didnt exist before radio transmission.
Please continue to highlight your spectacular ignorance so that everyone knows for sure that you should not be taken seriously.
Everyone? You mean the 10 people that read this thread?
Encryption is only a crime if done by a poor or not the government. So long as it’s got the rich people backing it, it’s not even in the same league.
When will you people see that this world doesn’t have universal rules. It has rules for the poor. And those for the rich.
There's a mass without roofs, a prison to fill
A country soul that reads post not bills
A strike, and a line of cops outside of the mill.
There is a right to obey, and the right to kill.
(c) Rage against the Machine
Yet.
It's the Cypherpunk's Manifesto all over again.
Encryption is not a crime *unless you’re doing it to someone else’s data to extort them for bitcoins
Legalize it
I think it’s contextual. It is definitely relevant to bring into a criminal case that criminals made attempts to obstruct gathering of evidence in commission of the crime. It’s no different than shredding or burning paper files. Evidence of criminals taking steps to hide the criminal activity is how you prove that a transgression is willful rather than negligent. That matters in cases like murder.
Encryption is also criminal in some contexts, like encrypted radio broadcasts on frequencies for public use.
It definitely belongs as a talking point in a courtroom, imo.
With respect, this is a short-sighted take. There's literally no legitimate crime that is made worse because a person tried to avoid it being detected. Plot a murder over tor? Not a good look. But in what universe is someone less morally culpable because they just posted on craigslist?
On the other hand, allowing the use of encryption or other privacy methods to affect the criminality or punishment assigned to an action just creates a backdoor to criminalizing privacy itself. Allowing that serves no real purpose in deterring folks from hurting others, but it sure does further the interests of an oppressive or authoritarian regime.
How does covering up a crime not make it worse when it allows you to get away and commit more crime?
Doing crime in the privacy of my own home allows me to get away with it and commit more crime, doesn't mean we should have transparent walls that everyone can watch what you do through.
I don’t disagree with that but the article is talking about what arguments are permissible in a court room which is a little different. Same as using tools to commit a crime. It’s not illegal to own or use tools but when used in commission of a crime, this can be a factor in proving elements of a crime that require proof of intention or malice.
Not sure I understand how you are reading the article. That's like saying having a steak knife in your home is a factor in proving elements of a crime. Tools are completely neutral parties that are unrelated to prosecution, and encryption should be no different.
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
