The argument is that strong end-to-end encryption made certain kinds of spying harder, but actually helped mass surveillance.
The big argument of the 1990s crypto wars was between strong and weak encryption. The technology for strong encryption had become available, making code breaking intractable. With weak encryption, there is the possibility that a well-funded spy agency could crack it. USA had favored weak encryption for international communications.
While I was on the side of strong encryption, it is difficult to make the economic case for it. That is, what were the economic losses from use of weak encryption, in dollars? Did any businesses actually lose money using weak encryption?
No. For most people, the most common use of encryption was to secure passwords in web browsers, and to secure credit card numbers for online purchases. Some browsers used weak encryption, and that was adequate for the purpose.
Even with strong encryption, spy agencies might still figure out with whom you are communicating.
There is still a debate in many countries over whether law enforcement should have the ability to crack encrypted communications.
For some people, privacy is very important. Most people do not care much, and are happy to give up some privacy so that Facebook or Google can deliver more targeted ads.
No comments:
Post a Comment