Back

Seriously, they're bringing the big guns: game-theoretical analyses. The lingo then sounds like this:

„This creates perverse incentives: hostile states and cybercriminals gain asymmetric advantages from the universal security degradation, while ordinary users and businesses bear the costs of weakened protections.“

„These vulnerabilities effectively transform encryption from what we could regard as a public good (secure communication that benefits everyone) into its opposite: once a back-door is imposed, malicious actors’ exploitation of that weakness harms all users.“

Not my kind of language but a very valuable resource when trying to convince people from a business-minded spectrum.

@pneutig You raise a good point about the importance of didactics here.
If one does not teach for a living it's easy to forget that eloquently making an uninterrupted and unchallenged argument using only truthful statements to a large and attentive audience could still potentially be an absolute waste of time if one (figuratively or literally) does not speak the language of that audience.

@chiefbongo Personally I think of it as an echo chamber, in which surveillance proponents within each institution reference the others to legitimise for why they keep proposing their attacks on encryption.

@pneutig I agree with you. However, I’m concerned about the personal connections and engagements between certain Commissioners, former Commissioners, and politicians with Thorn and other organisations. They have crossed the line imo.