>he's predicting it will be regulated out of existence because LE will have no means to break into systems once we fix all the bugs

That's conspiracy nonsense from the usual paranoid corners of the internet.

▲

miohtama an hour ago | parent | next [-]

Europol, a tax funded law enforcement body, is publicly lobbying exactly this.

Europol calls privacy-enhancing technologies, or PETS, the tools of criminals:

“PETs are used by criminal actors for secure communication, anonymisation, and protection of data. Criminal networks utilise various PETs, including end-to-end encrypted messaging apps, encrypted phones, and virtual private networks (VPNs), to communicate securely and anonymously. “

"For this reason, lawful access to electronic evidence has become one of the most critical issues for European law enforcement"

https://www.europol.europa.eu/cms/sites/default/files/docume...

Meanwhile Canada just banned e2e and Signal is leaving the country.

	▲	wolvoleo an hour ago \| parent [-]
		They can stick their chatcontrol where the sun don't shine, I don't expect people to play along with it. People will just move to apps that don't play ball with these backdoors. But we'll need some decentralised ones. Signal leaving Canada is exactly the problem with centralised networks like theirs: there's a single entity to go after for compliance. So they can be forced just like telegram was forced by Durov's arrest in France. But there's already good options that aren't centralised. I think people will move to those. At least that's what I will do and I hope most people follow suit.

▲

JohnMakin 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Here ya go:

https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013...

▲

jauntywundrkind 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

it's speculation about behavior. and it's grounded in a very real truth, that law enforcement in many nations has not been impeded by security / cryptography: they've had the means to break it, route around it. the assertion that this is changing feels imminently clear.

what happens is anyone's guess. (those who know certainly aren't gonna talk to us plebe public about it, haha yeah never.) but generally i think governments have been very much on the warpath to grab control, adding age (and thus identity) verification to basically all websites, and otherwise doing all they can to increase their ability to dragnet the internet and monitor it.

your accusation that it's conspiracy nonsense does indeed some what check out with me. i'm a fan of not going glonzo. i'm a fan of keeping our head and being realistic. it might not go so bad. but also: these people have done nothing to earn the public's trust. their attempts to make the internet bad and un-private have dragged on for decades, and they lose and they lose and they lose. but eventually they get a shot through. they get lucky and it gets worse. there's been very little ratchet the other way, just a general ratchet of loss and woe for the public, for privacy, for electronic freedom frontiers. the governments have not played nice at all, have demonstrated no interest in listening to the public, have disregarded all advocacy, and keep passing bad no good very bad laws, trying with persistence until eventually they find a chink in the armor.

so yes this is a glonzo theory. somewhat. i somewhat agree. but looking at who we are looking against, how things have gone, well: it seems all too realistic.

as for "usual paranoid corners of the internet" i think you are completely fucking off base out of your mind. this is from someone very respected very in the know and very good and very serious and you're just some shithrower with nothing to say. this kind of vacuous uncontestable low grade bullshit can go piss right the fuck off.

	▲	IncRnd an hour ago \| parent [-]
		It's conspiracy nonsense, because it wasn't what Green said.