Encryption Is Not a Crime

https://programming.dev/post/28846283

programming.dev - A collection of programming communities

I’ve been day dreaming about a social media platform built entirely on a peer-to-peer (P2P) model, leveraging the existing BitTorrent protocol. The idea is to decentralize content creation, distribution, and moderation, eliminating the need for centralized servers and control. Here’s the high-level vision: - Posts as Torrents: Every original post creates and seeds a torrent file on behalf of the OP. - Upvotes as Seeds: Upvoting a post downloads and seeds the post, reinforcing its availability. - Comments as Torrents: Each comment generates and seeds a torrent file somehow linked to the original post. - Comment Upvotes as Seeds: Upvoting a comment downloads and seeds the comment, amplifying engagement. - Text Only: to avoid exposing users to potentially graphic content (due to lack of centralized moderation) this platform would initially be limited to text content only. This would also drastically reduce the compute and bandwidth requirements of the seeder. - Custom BitTorrent Clients: Open-source Social Media BitTorrent clients would display the most popular social media content by day, week, month, or year. These clients would allow users to seed only the content they find valuable thus organically moderating the network of ideas. Relevant content continues to be seeded and shared, while outdated or unpopular content fades due to a lack of seeds. This setup seems like it could address key issues in traditional social media—privacy, censorship, and centralized control—while naturally prioritizing high-value content. Why hasn’t a system like this been widely adopted? Is it a matter of technical limitations, lack of a viable economic model, or something else? I’d love to hear your thoughts.

It's kind of integral to the function of enterprise?
The entire financial system literally relies on encryption
Lots of really critical stuff needs encryption, it's absolutely insane to try and ban it.
People lock their doors; everyone understands.
In China, basically every enterprise uses a VPN to get uncensored internet when needed.
It’s definitely not integral. You could just control the connection points. Ie, all your software tools on intranet and wired connection only. Any data can be decrypted.
No one can bank online without reliable encryption. No one can transact business online without reliable encryption.
You can actually. It just wouldn’t be encrypted.
Instead you just have to trust that anything you’re doing is actually with who they claim to be. No encryption means no identity or security guarantee.
Closed systems don’t require encryption.
Are you stupid enough to actually think the Internet is a closed system?
No lmao. How did you get that from all the talk about radio transmission and encryption?
This specific thread is talking about transacting business and banking online. You should be more careful to keep your arguments separated. Otherwise you not only look like an idiot but you also prove you can’t multitask for shit.
This specific thread is about criminality of encryption.

In which case anyone who wants to can read the message traffic and make changes to it before passing it on to the receiver.

No, you can’t conduct business this way.

Thats why it would have to be a closed system with controlled transmissions rather than omnidirectional radio transmissions.

You mean, for everyone to have their own infrastructure, many times what we have now, and still some jerk can literally wiretap like in old times?

Or send messengers?

No, you are wildly incorrect for multiple reasons both technical and practical.

I'm not even going to waste any more of my time pointing out how intensely ridiculous your assertions are.

Please tell me banking didnt exist before radio transmission.
Please continue to highlight your spectacular ignorance so that everyone knows for sure that you should not be taken seriously.
Everyone? You mean the 10 people that read this thread?
That’s correct, but your point is not clear. Public infrastructure is not a closed system. If your “closed systems” have to communicate, they either build and support their own parallel infrastructure or don’t, or communicate without encryption over public infrastructure. Which is not acceptable.

People used encryption for commercial purposes since Antiquity.

If your point is how it mostly was right “before radio transmission” - that latency would break civilization. You’d have to send messengers with safes for correspondence. The contents of which would be encrypted.

By the way, in those days nobody in their right mind would suggest banning encryption. If you need to read something - get a court order to read it first, if you read it without that you’ve committed a crime and it’s not admissible. If it’s encrypted, you could get the court to demand someone to decipher it, if it’s certain that they can.

A lot of steps, see, to not infringe on private life.