And this is the same reason why encryption backdoors would basically make encryption worthless. Doesn’t matter how strong the metal/encryption is if a backdoor exists to be the weakest link.
That’s not even the worse part of it.
A backdoor would give faceless organizations immense power. Unchecked power leads down a dark path full of corruption and abuse. It is a great way for governments to crush civil liberties.
Oh totally, but that’s the intended purpose. The thing is they’re saying they can do all that and still allow people to have a secure connection to their bank or whatever, but that’s impossible. Eventually, backdoors always lead to making the security worthless whether it’s bad design like putting hinge screws outside of the door so thrives can just use a screwdriver to remove the door, or a backdoor for locksmiths or government, it’s a weak link it doesn’t matter how thick the door is if a screwdriver removes it or how hard the encryption is to break if it can be bypassed by getting the code used by locksmiths or government, bad actors will get ahold of it and use it.
The government is often the bad actor
Yes, but I’m saying they’re making these laws and saying they need it. Many people agree that they need it and because they think they are still secure because they’re using an “encrypted connection”, assuming they don’t think they need to be secure from their government, they are supporting it. If they see that by letting the government steal their data they are also letting that scammer that keeps scamming their grandmother for her credit card to get that credit card number without even needing to scam her anymore, they may think twice about supporting the policy.
I bet they just watched a few episodes of the lockpicking lawyer dude has been cracking these ‘high security’ safes open with ease for at least a decade
I love LPL, but he tends to focus on mechanical bypasses. I feel pretty sure that the safes mentioned in this article are actually listed by UL as safes. UL, of course, fucked up with the electronic locks themselves by underwriting them, but I have much more confidence in UL’s mechanical expertise. The common bypasses that LPL uses would not be present on one of these safes, and he’d likely consider them to be truly secure (this vuln nonwithstanding, of course).
EDIT: for reference, I don’t think UL considers most gun safes found in American homes to even be “safes.” If they do rate them as a safe, they’re usually considered “Residential Security Containers.” If the Wikipedia article is to be believed, that means the following:
resist for five minutes expert attacks employing tools including screwdrivers, adjustable wrenches, pry bars, punches, chisels and hammers no heavier than 3 lb.
I note that they don’t mention it resisting an angle-grinder for any amount of time. 🤔
Yep, although using angle grinders can possibly destroy what’s inside. UL does have much more stringent standards. To quote the Wikipedia article on safes:
TL-15 - This is a combination-locked safe that offers limited protection against combinations of common mechanical and electrical tools. The safe will resist abuse for 15 minutes from tools such as hand tools, picking tools, mechanical or electric tools, grinding points, carbide drills and devices that apply pressure. While the UL 687 defines this as a “limited degree” of protection, that standard is used for commercial applications, and the TL-15 rating offers significantly better protection than many unrated safes.
ahh that’s some good perspective thank you
You inspired me! He has an episode on unlocking one of my safes, but it requires a special tool. :(
Funky girl with green hair in a side ponytail: “[click click clickity click]… I’m in!”
