So you're saying that there should be one central database holding the passwords for each and every device out there? As much as there is wrong with what you're saying, there's one giant flaw that even those who don't understand encryption should be able to see:
You're still making one central target to crack everything.
The biggest advantage of encryption is it's decentralization. Crack one device and you don't crack everything. But with your idea, crack Google or Apple's database and you've got everything. And it wouldn't take a master hacker, all it would take is one lazy/malicious/mistaken employee.
This, of course, assumes that the government would even allow a database like that to exist outside of their control.
And why are we even bothering? Smart criminals will never be caught by this. ISIS has their own encryption now, drug dealers use burner phones (and they don't even bother with encryption), smart criminals would just use the not intentionally flawed software we already have. Stupid criminals already incriminate themselves. Why make everyone else less secure?
So, one key to unencrypt all phones of a specific manufacturer? One key that can be copied infinitely and can't be returned to the manufacturer? One key that becomes a vary large target for all hackers out there?
Like the HDDVD encryption key? How long did that take to crack? How often does Blu-Ray have to change their encryption keys?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Enough strawmen to fill up a dozen fields.
"My thoughts on this are the same as many others."
Yeah, other trolls like Angry Dude and Avarage Joe. You're just another in a long line of people intentionally antagonizing other commenters by false accusations, insults, and dragging the discussion off topic.
The truth has outlived those trolls, it'll outlive you.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Enough strawmen to fill up a dozen fields.
You have a bank account, right? You're an upstanding citizen (OK, I'm making an assumption there), so I'm sure you do. You are aware that if encryption is broken, you don't even have to be on the Internet to have your account information stolen? Banks use VPN encryption to transfer data between offices and other banks. Break encryption, that information is no longer secure. You suddenly find your account balance $0.
Do you telecommute to work? Go to the doctor's office? Use a credit card? All of that stuff and far, far more rely on secure communication. Break that and everything you know falls apart around you.
Constantly hiding under the "Copyright Infringement" banner just shows you have absolutely no idea of the horrors you're calling for.
Despite what anyone thinks about the government and it's trustworthyness, you keep forgetting (probably intentionally)that it's physically impossible to give the good guys a way to monitor encrypted traffic without giving the bad guys the same ability.
If anyone brings up that point, you tend to not ever respond.
Care to actually elaborate on your oh so unclear response?
All telephone communication goes through one of a few central hubs, so tapping the communication securely is relatively simple.
Encrypted communication does not go through any central hubs thus cannot be tapped into in that way. The only possible way is to create a security flaw in the encryption and thus destroy everything because you're afraid.
And don't get the wrong idea. If these assholes get what they want, it will be found by or leaked to the wrong people and you, along with everyone else, will be harmed by it.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Replies to killing access on accusations & copyright math
1) Filing? No. Fighting the actual case? Yes.
2) You do realize that most people still only have access to one, maybe two ISPs. It can take up to three fucking weeks (perhaps even longer) to switch (assuming the second ISP even provides service where they say they do). And that's assuming the second ISP will be willing to take on the liability. If this ruling goes without a fight, that's exactly what's going to happen. You get kicked off of one ISP and no others are going to be willing to risk $25,000,000 just to get one more customer.
"The fact that the information turned out later to be untrue"
It didn't turn out to be untrue, it turned out to be non-existent. It would be like me claiming you stole my car, the police taking your car (keeping it for 5 years), and then it turns out that they never even bothered to ask for the paperwork showing I owned the car.
Actually there is harm in checking. It puts credibility behind the false claims that WiFi is dangerous.
There is 0 evidence that anyone is actually affected by WiFi. Treating it as a brand new, dangerous thing after 20 years of use (not including the decades of other types of signals) is just fear mongering.
But, hay, your an "electronic engineer versed in electronic medical devices." Do you have any idea how much money you could get, and how much good you could do if you prove your claims? I mean, everyone here thinks the claims are full of it and have no problems being around WiFi. Imagen what would change if you put your money where your mouth is and proved it.
You don't see a problem with this?
This whole "get everything for free" mentality is what caused this problem in the first place. Websites wanted more money, so they put in more ads. Advertisers wanted more money, so they made more annoying ads. Hackers wanted free money, so they made malicious ads.
People didn't have a problem with ads at the beginning. We've been trained by TV and radio... And in magazines and movies and at ball games, on buses and milk cartons and T-shirts and bananas and written on the sky (but not in dreams) that advertisements are a thing that we should accept. It's not until they got bad that people started fighting back.
This entitlement mentality (that's the word you're looking for) goes both ways.