I think that's a false dichotomy

[Johan Wevers]

On 04-09-2016 3:05, Robert J. Hansen wrote:

> Now, of course I don't want the civil authorities to have
> legislatively-mandated back doors into every system.  I don't think
> that's an appropriate solution.  But I do believe the civil authorities
> need appropriate mechanisms to pursue their lawful ends (and effective
> oversight systems to ensure they're being used lawfully).


In case of decent encryption, a backdoor is the only way to achieve that.

If the police stands at my door with a warrant, I have the right to deny
them entrance. However, if I do they will kick my door. They can
confiscate my encrypted files too, but without my help they can't get
in. Same situation, different outcome.

> I'm transitioning out of my job, where for the last eight years I've
> been doing research and development into digital forensics, mostly for
> government customers.

Do I smell a little bit of a Stockholm syndrome here?

> The amateurs are easy to catch.  But there are some genuinely crafty
> people in this world, and they practice astonishingly good operational
> security.

You have to accept that some crimes will go unpunished. In a nice
democracy even more than in a totalitarian dictatorship. In The
Netherlands, the lowest rate of crime was in the days during the German
occupation in WW2. Not only was there less to steal to begin with, but
the repression on lawbreakers was very severe.

I prefer to have some crimes unpunished above living in a totalitarian
dictatorship. Even if it are very serious crimes.

-- 
ir. J.C.A. Wevers
PGP/GPG public keys at http://www.xs4all.nl/~johanw/pgpkeys.html