[H]omer wrote:
> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>
>> Police decryption powers 'flawed'
>>
>> ,----[ Quote ]
>> | The government faces criticism over plans to give police powers to
>> | make suspects produce readable copies of encrypted computer
>> | evidence.
>
> Waste of time.
>
> Those serious about securing data, can just use plausible deniability
> techniques, such as steganography or hidden containers to obfuscate
> encrypted data, e.g. conceal hidden documents in a pr0n collection, or
> obscure classified data in secondary (hidden) containers, within a
> primary container holding plausibly subversive (but still legal)
> conspiracy theory material.
>
> I'm all for thwarting the terrorists, but why should everyone else's
> privacy be compromised because of a few ragheads? Just don't let them
> into the country in the first place; problem solved.
>
The BIG problem with that is... it's too simple. Government, on any level,
thrives on complexity and political correctness.
>> | But some peers, academics and cryptographers say the plans are
>> | flawed and risk being abused.
>
> The police abuse their powers? /shock/ That could *never* happen,
> could it?
>
>> | "You do not secure the liberty of our country and value of our
>> | democracy..."
>
> /choke/
>
--
Jerry McBride
|
|
