Even if the back door wasn't there, you wouldn't want nation state hackers anywhere near telecoms since they're critical infrastructure. Telecoms should be highly secure. Period.

▲

ddtaylor 11 hours ago | parent [-]

It's okay to have unlocked backdoors because you don't lock your front door?

▲

Clent 11 hours ago | parent | next [-]

No, it's pointless to complain about the existence of a backdoor, locked or unlocked because there is a front door that is not being locked.

	▲	ddtaylor 39 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Not if the solutions to both are the same.

▲

maltalex 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I get that you don't like lawful intercept. That's fine. But focusing on only that aspect of telcos derails the conversation and prevents us (in the very broad sense of "us") from making progress on things we all agree on. Can we stop bikeshedding and agree that telcos are critical infrastructure and need to be highly secure in general?

A hacker in control of a telco can do as they please regardless of any backdoors or lawful intercept systems. They can just use regular network functions to route calls wherever they want.

	▲	ddtaylor 41 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		> Can we stop bikeshedding and agree that telcos are critical infrastructure and need to be highly secure in general? Yes, because the solutions to both are the same. Decentralized and trustless systems solve both problems is my opinion. I agree the pathway from where we are at now and there is complex, but it's not "bikeshedding" to believe there are fundamentally different and better ways to organize and secure a network that change the attack surface entirely. (Think of IP layer being replaced with a PKI as a small example)