The EFF raises valid concerns regarding the abuse of security backdoors. As far as I remember, they and other privacy advocate have been doing so for the longest period of time.
Unfortunately, the real world will always fall short of the ideal one. Telegram and Durov are already facing this issue - where privacy ends and law enforcement begins.
a back door should be the front door where the one who needs the information goes to the office of the information holder and accesses the information inside the provider's space with the proper court warrants.
Isn't this premature? Regardless of philosophy on government surveillance, there is no indication this was a "backdoor" or some mathematical weakness put in place by government.
A system designed to allow access to data is not by definition a backdoor.
If someone sets up a VPN gateway to a secure system for law enforcement, and that VPN gets popped, do we call that a backdoor?
To me, backdoors are methods of access that rely on obscurity, mostly do to one or more parties being unaware of its existence.
If an ISP and government both know an access vectors exists and it uses standard protocols without known exploits, then that is not what I call a "backdoor".
Well, a backdoor is more traditionally referred to be something secret, but if I remember correctly it's been routinely used for the overt LI things as well, at least since the "crypto wars" in the 90s
It sure is how the EFF is using the word in this article
The EFF raises valid concerns regarding the abuse of security backdoors. As far as I remember, they and other privacy advocate have been doing so for the longest period of time.
Unfortunately, the real world will always fall short of the ideal one. Telegram and Durov are already facing this issue - where privacy ends and law enforcement begins.
Not always, but it is rare in this day and age of ruin.
People don't realize that privacy is the right to not to be blackmailed, manipulated, or coerced by the highest bidder.
a back door should be the front door where the one who needs the information goes to the office of the information holder and accesses the information inside the provider's space with the proper court warrants.
Isn't this premature? Regardless of philosophy on government surveillance, there is no indication this was a "backdoor" or some mathematical weakness put in place by government.
A system designed to allow access to data is not by definition a backdoor.
That's the definition of backdoor they use, and that's often used when other proposals of "lawful access" are discussed
A completely secret backdoor is unlikely to be safer than official "LI" are, anyhow
If someone sets up a VPN gateway to a secure system for law enforcement, and that VPN gets popped, do we call that a backdoor?
To me, backdoors are methods of access that rely on obscurity, mostly do to one or more parties being unaware of its existence.
If an ISP and government both know an access vectors exists and it uses standard protocols without known exploits, then that is not what I call a "backdoor".
Well, a backdoor is more traditionally referred to be something secret, but if I remember correctly it's been routinely used for the overt LI things as well, at least since the "crypto wars" in the 90s
It sure is how the EFF is using the word in this article
And in other news, water is wet.
Someone forgot to tell the bad guys to set the appropriate RFC 3514 bit.