The weirdest part of this argument is that law abiding people get no encryption while people who break the law will still have access to encryption, so how does it help you catch pedophiles?
I don’t really understand how this will work in reality for things like SSL or ssh.
The idea is that if only criminals use encryption, they can go after every user of encryption and do some enhanced interrogation on them, since they are obviously up to no good.
But I also don't understand what they plan to do for online shopping and so on.
I think that's how it should be argued. Strong encryption software exists. It's on the internet. You can't make it disappear. If you outlaw it, law observing people won't use it. But how would you force a criminal not to use it if you can't force him not to abuse children?
First assume that a random-looking message is sent only by criminals.
Second, ignore the theoretical problems with measuring kolgomorov complexity of a message. That's just academic mumbo jumbo - "can I zip the message?" is good enough.
Third, buy $80 car battery at HD with $20 booster cables.
No - the really weird part is that you know that both law enforcement and politicians will all get to use unbreakable encryption...
...but somehow, anyone else using such encryption will be deemed a criminal.
I say what is actually being attempted is that law enforcement and politicians (and our governments by extension) are just wanting to hide their criminal acts behind encryption - but project those criminal wants and ideas onto the ordinary citizen as an excuse.
If we as a society fall for this ruse, children will still be exploited - by the connected and the powerful in our governments, as they currently are today. It's just that these people want that capability to themselves, they want it secret, and they don't want the small players to have the same abilities.
If recent events haven't shown people that, they aren't paying attention and deserve the misery they will build for themselves. They essentially want a future where they can continue doing what they do today, but without the oversight that eventually leads to them needing to "secretly" kill off a person who might rat them out (and then do whatever it takes to suppress any and all mention in the media of any follow-up to the story - we are watching this happen real-time, and I don't know exactly how it works, but it seemingly is working very, very well - despite all the evidence and everything else already out in the public domain; there are forces and organizations that want it buried - and they are currently winning).
If only they have unbreakable encryption - and oversight of it all - only they can get away with it and not have to worry about those pesky stories (and should anyone internal to the system harbor objections - then they can be easily eliminated without anyone knowing either - or at least they think this, I believe).
> law abiding people get no encryption while people who break the law will still have access to encryption, so how does it help you catch pedophiles?
If only people who break the law use encryption, then everyone who uses encryption must be breaking some law (that is, "(~lawbreaker => ~encryption) => (encryption => lawbreaker)").
That is, instead of having to do all the work to find out if the guy is really a pedophile or something else, they can simply arrest the guy for using encryption. It's a lazy approach.
> I don’t really understand how this will work in reality for things like SSL or ssh.
It wouldn't, these protocols (and many others) would have to be basically rewritten, or we'd have to go back to plain HTTP and telnet.
But they'll allow a cutout for politicians and law enforcement (aka government) - ergo, such people -must- also be criminals.
Heck - we know today, encryption using or not - many within our governments are at best shady, and more than a few are criminals or perform criminal acts.
They say "think of the children"? Trust me - they already are, and not in the good way.
We have no idea just how far and deep the tentacles of Epstein's "system" went - but based on what we already know and/or suspect - it was far reaching, involving many high-up government officials, corporations, public and private universities, and likely more. It wouldn't surprise me to find out high-up law enforcement and quite possibly even individuals involved in child protection systems were involved as well. I'm almost certain there were more than a few state governors involved. Probably also members of the media, bankers - if you can think of it, Epstein probably had one or more of them involved.
They didn't want him to spill the beans. And now, they want things to be even more quiet, so they can monitor, but can't be monitored themselves.
I don’t really understand how this will work in reality for things like SSL or ssh.