I work chiefly in two areas of tech policy: voting, where new hard problems keep coming up, and surveillance, where we mostly just have the same stupid argument over and over.https://twitter.com/techdirt/status/1022159595735863297 …
-
Show this thread
-
Securing things is freaking HARD. We don't know how to do it reliably even without backdoors. Come talk to us when massive data breaches stop being regular events and then MAYBE we'll be ready to discuss backdoors. Until then, we're busy trying to solve fundamental problems.
2 replies 45 retweets 154 likesShow this thread -
"Why don't you focus on advances that would allow backdoors?" We ARE. The reason we can't do secure backdoors are largely the same reasons we can't do security in general at scale. This is something armies of specialists have been working on for literally decades.
8 replies 31 retweets 107 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @jdormansteele @mattblaze
Secure systems are what would “allow backdoors.” Everyone is trying to build secure systems, but not necessarily with the goal of allowing backdoors.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
A system with a backdoor is insecure by definition because someone who's not supposed to has access.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
That’s a sensible policy argument. But we don’t need to have that argument (and people can disagree about it) if it’s not technically possible to build a system that actually behaves that way.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
I don't see it as a policy argument. It's a logical inconsistency of requirements argument, which is "harder" than just technical.
-
-
Replying to @RichFelker @brcrwilliams
Balancing competing equities like that is exactly the kind of thing congress deals with in all sorts of domains all the time.
0 replies 0 retweets 1 likeThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.