Is the end nigh for end-to-end encryption? | Encryption | The Guardian

[Undiscussed Horrific Abuse, One Victim of Many]

On Mon, Apr 4, 2022, 4:52 AM jim bell <jdb10987 at yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 4, 2022 at 12:45 AM, Undiscussed Horrific Abuse, One Victim of
> Many
> <gmkarl at gmail.com> wrote:
> So long as the social vulnerabilities of silo'd corporate platforms are
> being abused for politics, war, control, and personal power, laws like
> these will keep on coming, albeit slowly.
>
> They do not spell doom.
>
> [disclaimer: I read only jim's summary, not the article, and I have mental
> issues]
>
>
>
> The material you did not quote was a partial quote from the article
> itself. I did not add any comment.
>
> But I am fully in favor of end-to-end encryption.  We should not have to
> trust some non-government organization to give us (revocable at any time,
> in secret?) 'permission' to keep secrets.
>

How do things possibly sort out that interoperability between messaging
systems would reduce rather than increase end-to-end encryption?

Ideally multi-platform interoperability would mean that simply using
end-to-end encryption would let people who have never heard of it, learn
about it.

It additionally would make it much easier to onboard to encrypted
platforms, since you could still communicate with those who haven't yet.


> I remember the Clipper chip debacle of 1993, 29 years ago.
>

I'm curious about this story.


>        Jim Bell
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/html
Size: 3091 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/attachments/20220404/4125ff63/attachment.txt>