Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 21st Nov 2013 23:46 UTC
Internet & Networking

"We can end government censorship in a decade," Schmidt said during a speech in Washington. "The solution to government surveillance is to encrypt everything."

Setting aside the entertaining aspect of the source of said statement, I don't think encryption in and of itself is enough. Encryption performed by companies is useless, since we know by now that companies - US or otherwise - are more than eager to bend over backwards to please their governments.

What we need is encryption that we perform ourselves, so that neither governments nor companies are involved. I imagine some sort of box between your home network and the internet, that encrypts and decrypts everything, regardless of source or destination. This box obviously needs to run open source software, otherwise we'd be right back where we started.

Is something like that even possible?

Thread beginning with comment 577356
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Comment by Luminair
by Lennie on Sat 23rd Nov 2013 09:13 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Luminair"
Lennie
Member since:
2007-09-22

It requires you to trust that the party on the other side has not been compromised.


Not if the you give encrypted data to the other party.

An example:

Chrome has a bookmark, acocunt, whatever sync system. Data lives in cleartext at Google.

Firefox has a bookmark, account, whatever sync system, data is encrypted and than it is stored at Mozilla (Mozilla doesn't even want to see your data, data that isn't encrypted needs a lot more work to keep safe).

You could always choose where to keep your data with Mozilla, with Chrome you don't. But you needed to run a server.

Mozilla is now working on making it possible to store that data anywhere you like. It could be something like Dropbox, as it is already encrypted it doesn't matter all that much anumore.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[3]: Comment by Luminair
by galvanash on Sat 23rd Nov 2013 21:22 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Luminair"
galvanash Member since:
2006-01-25

Not if the you give encrypted data to the other party.


What you are talking about isn't communication... Communication involves one party sending information to another party with the intent that they can read it. That requires a key exchange, and your back to the same problem...

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: Comment by Luminair
by Lennie on Sat 23rd Nov 2013 22:04 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Luminair"
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

I don't think Schmidt was talking only about communication, but maybe that was my interpretation.

Reply Parent Score: 2