←back to thread

286 points 2OEH8eoCRo0 | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
basilgohar ◴[] No.42132069[source]
> and the copying of certain information that was subject to U.S. law enforcement requests pursuant to court orders

Is this legal speak for saying, "They're using our backdoors without our permission."?

replies(9): >>42132086 #>>42132150 #>>42132199 #>>42132267 #>>42132292 #>>42132511 #>>42132544 #>>42132558 #>>42133159 #
CarpaDorada ◴[] No.42132511[source]
No it is not, because these are not backdoors, the entities legally own the data users have provided them and the courts require them to share the data for investigative purposes. When the FBI pressed Apple to break its encryption, it would not had been a backdoor, but simply a different product that Apple would've offered. A backdoor would be a secret exploit that circumvents encryption, or other security methods.
replies(1): >>42132664 #
greycol ◴[] No.42132664[source]
You've probably conflated the saying "going through the backdoor" with the noun backdoor, which is an understandable mistake to make.

Conflating the two is even easier when the backdoor is morally questionable i.e. When someone purposefully installs a wooden backdoor on a bankvault and says it's so that we don't need to go through the whole rigmarole of opening the main vault-door. Yes it allows them to do their job of checking what's in safety deposit boxes easier but the door itself is an evil.

replies(2): >>42132725 #>>42132758 #
1. CarpaDorada ◴[] No.42132725[source]
"Using our backdoors" is what was said, not "going through the backdoor". Backdoors have a very specific meaning in computer security. US law enforcement is not using backdoors to access the data of US companies.