Encryption is not a crime, encryption protects all of us. Encryption, and especially end-to-end encryption, is an essential tool to protect everyone online. Attempts to undermine encryption are an attack to our fundamental right to privacy and an attack to our inherent right to security and safety.
It’s definitely not integral. You could just control the connection points. Ie, all your software tools on intranet and wired connection only. Any data can be decrypted.
No one can bank online without reliable encryption. No one can transact business online without reliable encryption.
You can actually. It just wouldn’t be encrypted.
Instead you just have to trust that anything you’re doing is actually with who they claim to be. No encryption means no identity or security guarantee.
Closed systems don’t require encryption.
Are you stupid enough to actually think the Internet is a closed system?
No lmao. How did you get that from all the talk about radio transmission and encryption?
This specific thread is talking about transacting business and banking online. You should be more careful to keep your arguments separated. Otherwise you not only look like an idiot but you also prove you can’t multitask for shit.
This specific thread is about criminality of encryption.
In which case anyone who wants to can read the message traffic and make changes to it before passing it on to the receiver.
No, you can’t conduct business this way.
Thats why it would have to be a closed system with controlled transmissions rather than omnidirectional radio transmissions.
You mean, for everyone to have their own infrastructure, many times what we have now, and still some jerk can literally wiretap like in old times?
Or send messengers?
No, you are wildly incorrect for multiple reasons both technical and practical.
I’m not even going to waste any more of my time pointing out how intensely ridiculous your assertions are.
Please tell me banking didnt exist before radio transmission.
People used encryption for commercial purposes since Antiquity.
If your point is how it mostly was right “before radio transmission” - that latency would break civilization. You’d have to send messengers with safes for correspondence. The contents of which would be encrypted.
By the way, in those days nobody in their right mind would suggest banning encryption. If you need to read something - get a court order to read it first, if you read it without that you’ve committed a crime and it’s not admissible. If it’s encrypted, you could get the court to demand someone to decipher it, if it’s certain that they can.
A lot of steps, see, to not infringe on private life.
Please continue to highlight your spectacular ignorance so that everyone knows for sure that you should not be taken seriously.
Everyone? You mean the 10 people that read this thread?
That’s correct, but your point is not clear. Public infrastructure is not a closed system. If your “closed systems” have to communicate, they either build and support their own parallel infrastructure or don’t, or communicate without encryption over public infrastructure. Which is not acceptable.