Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 6th Sep 2018 21:14 UTC
Privacy, Security, Encryption

The US, UK, and three other governments have called on tech companies to build backdoors into their encrypted products, so that law enforcement will always be able to obtain access. If companies don't, the governments say they "may pursue technological, enforcement, legislative, or other measures" in order to get into locked devices and services.

Their statement came out of a meeting last week between nations in the Five Eyes pact, an intelligence sharing agreement between the US, UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. The nations issued a statement covering a range of technology-related issues they face, but it was their remarks on encryption that stood out the most.

Break encryption, or we'll break you.

Thread beginning with comment 662109
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
kurkosdr
Member since:
2011-04-11



IMHO open source on mobile in it's current form is not in a good place to promote owner freedoms. It's ironic then that most of our phones are running linux. Trouble is the freedoms offered by GPLv2 were conceived under assumptions that owners would be in control their machines, which is increasingly in jeopardy in more modern computer eras.


It's something not often mentioned: Most people don't really care about the freedom of access to the source code. Some people care about freedom of installation and freedom to patch the binary (hence the whole deal with jailbreaking and rooting). Stallman made a big mistake two consider these two as granted. On the other hand, can't blame him for doing so, he wrote the GPLv2 in more innocent times.

Edited 2018-09-07 22:11 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

kurkosdr,

It's something not often mentioned: Most people don't really care about the freedom of access to the source code. Some people care about freedom of installation and freedom to patch the binary.


Sure, most people don't express an interest in open source code, but technically this doesn't mean they don't benefit from it nevertheless. Consider that people who don't express an interest in "right to repair" legislation nevertheless benefit from repairmen having such access, people who don't express any interest in chemistry can nevertheless benefit from having chemists, people who don't express an interest in mechanical engineering nevertheless benefit from having bridges and buildings that don't fail, etc. There are thousands of examples we could use here, but I hope the point is clear: "not interested in" does not imply "not impacted by".


Stallman made a big mistake two consider these two as granted. On the other hand, can't blame him for doing so, he wrote the GPLv2 in more innocent times.


Yea, he had a vision, but didn't know how things were going to unfold.

Reply Parent Score: 3