Comment by vasco

1 year ago

Why not the "founder locked up" test? If the founder claims secure encryption, yet they are not in jail, that means there's no secure encryption because they negotiated their freedom in exchange for secret backdoors.

11 comments

vasco

Reply
tossaway0  1 year ago

Maybe, but not a good litmus test. If it’s truly secure and the founder can’t provide information because they don’t have access to it it’s also possible they can’t build a case in most countries.

rafram  1 year ago

That isn’t applicable here. Telegram isn’t encrypted and yet they refused to comply with subpoenas. Companies whose customer data is encrypted can truthfully say that they have no way to access it for law enforcement. Telegram can’t.

Maybe in the future, creators of encrypted messaging apps will get locked up. I certainly hope not. But this case doesn’t indicate anything one way or another.

  • mandmandam  1 year ago

    > Companies whose customer data is encrypted can truthfully say that they have no way to access it for law enforcement. Telegram can’t.

    I dunno man, kinda seems like you ought to either have a right to privacy or not. Surely there's other ways to make a case, without extraordinarily abusable legal strong-arming.

    Why should a wealthy person be able to legally afford encrypted communication on a secure device, when 90+% of people can't because they're poor and tech illiterate?

    Does our historically unequal society need more information and rights asymmetry between rich and poor? Between privileged and marginalized?