No need for it to "leak" - China have already said in the past they will be getting in line for a copy of any lawful access key, so that their police forces can lawfully use it as an alternative to lawfully beating the password out of their citizens.
That like the lawyers challenging mobile phone intercept data, lawyers that suspect the FBI have done an "end run" around their wiretap process would challenge that evidence, to see if they can get it excluded....
Actually, it has negative impact - the very fact that the state does crap like this makes those exposed to it feel hostile, and hence increases the probability they will take some sort of active part in anti-government actions....
Or simpler still - most international companies need to treat governments at least reasonably equally. I am sure GCHQ and the NSA would be right behind the idea of all of cisco's routers having hardcoded backdoors in them for their convenience, but less so if the US and UK governments were also using them, and the German and Chinese governments had keys too....
After all, google have found several fake certificates for google properties due to the fact that Chrome has cert pinning for google certs baked in....
The US courts seem to have no problem with a classification only applying sometimes, when convenient to a big company - look at Aereo - who apparently is "like a cable company" if that makes them liable for distribution fees, but "isn't like a cable company" if they want the compulsory licensing available to cable companies.
Plus side - its a great deal more cover traffic for TOR (after all, that's why TOR was released to the public in the first place)
Down side - most of that will be redirections outside of TOR to embedded movie files or similar that nontheless will be accessed over TOR - putting a massive strain on the whole system, which already struggles a little with the load on it today. Unless farcebook are willing to also fund additional nodes to carry some of their load, they are going to degrade the TOR performance for everyone.
That the UK *already has* a law to demand someone turns over keys to secured media of any type, on pain of imprisonment - no judicial warrant required.
So what is being complained about here isn't being unable to gain lawful access to a device, its about being unable to gain access to a device without filing the paperwork first...
BestNetTech has not posted any stories submitted by Dave Howe.
Re: leakage
No need for it to "leak" - China have already said in the past they will be getting in line for a copy of any lawful access key, so that their police forces can lawfully use it as an alternative to lawfully beating the password out of their citizens.
You would think..
That like the lawyers challenging mobile phone intercept data, lawyers that suspect the FBI have done an "end run" around their wiretap process would challenge that evidence, to see if they can get it excluded....
Re: terrorism
Actually, it has negative impact - the very fact that the state does crap like this makes those exposed to it feel hostile, and hence increases the probability they will take some sort of active part in anti-government actions....
Re: Who the hell are they?
Or simpler still - most international companies need to treat governments at least reasonably equally. I am sure GCHQ and the NSA would be right behind the idea of all of cisco's routers having hardcoded backdoors in them for their convenience, but less so if the US and UK governments were also using them, and the German and Chinese governments had keys too....
Surprised this works in chrome
After all, google have found several fake certificates for google properties due to the fact that Chrome has cert pinning for google certs baked in....
Clearly...
Ignorance of the law IS an excuse now in the USA - but only if you are a cop.
Sadly...
The US courts seem to have no problem with a classification only applying sometimes, when convenient to a big company - look at Aereo - who apparently is "like a cable company" if that makes them liable for distribution fees, but "isn't like a cable company" if they want the compulsory licensing available to cable companies.
Well....
Plus side - its a great deal more cover traffic for TOR (after all, that's why TOR was released to the public in the first place)
Down side - most of that will be redirections outside of TOR to embedded movie files or similar that nontheless will be accessed over TOR - putting a massive strain on the whole system, which already struggles a little with the load on it today. Unless farcebook are willing to also fund additional nodes to carry some of their load, they are going to degrade the TOR performance for everyone.
Bearin mind of course
That the UK *already has* a law to demand someone turns over keys to secured media of any type, on pain of imprisonment - no judicial warrant required.
So what is being complained about here isn't being unable to gain lawful access to a device, its about being unable to gain access to a device without filing the paperwork first...