This will just push people to open source applications and peer to peer networking. Basically, devolve back to the early days of the internet with regard to person to person communications.
How is the DoJ going to force Signal or even Telegram to add a back door?
Well, during the Cold War the feds declared encryption to be "Auxiliary Military Equipment," listed on the USML [1]. It was illegal -- prison time illegal -- to ship software which could encrypt communications outside the USA up until 1992 [2].
I'm old enough to remember the tail end of this and it was absolutely absurd, yet still very real. I remember Zimmermann being investigated by the feds [3]. Zimmermann was smart to tie publishing PGP to the First Amendment. Something like Signal in those days may well have resulted in charges and a conviction.
Never underestimate the potential for folly when it comes to government regulation.
I really would not be surprised if will surface that Telegram has a backdoor for Russian special services. After Anton Rosenberg's posts [1] and Durov's (very unconvincing) responses, it is clear that Durov lies a lot how Telegram operates, and it is quite likely that all their 'blocking' in Russia is just a show to boost credibility.
It also should be noted, that while Telegram markets itself as the most safe and protected messenger, it's regular chats are, in fact, non-encrypted at all and are way less secure than WhatsApps. It's actually baffling, he bashes WhatsApp with such audacity [2], telling in one sentence, that 'if your phone dies, you can't access your messages on another device', and then continues preaching how cool it is to use encryption. BUT IF ONE USES END-TO-END ENCRYPTION, ONE CAN'T ACCESS MESSAGES ON ANOTHER DEVICE, BY DEFINITION!!!!!
It never ceases to amaze me that people bought into this. A comfortable to use app and a really good promise of security turns out to be better than real proper security. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Ah, no. I missed the part about it being a completely new device. This obviously only works for devices that were already authenticated when the message was first sent.
That's the point - Durov bashes WhatsApp for 'inconvenience' and supposed lack of privacy, but in reality this inconvenience is a result of real presence of privacy. In contrast, Telegram's convenience is a result of a real lack of privacy, because to work this way it has to have a way to decrypt user messages.
Of course, they tell tales on how deeply it is all encrypted on T's servers, and that only select few trusted engineers have keys, but those are just tall tales.
> How is the DoJ going to force Signal or even Telegram to add a back door?
Hypothetically: they could easily force the Apple and Google stores to stop carrying it, or even to prevent its installation using the same mechanisms used to scan for malware. Do not underestimate the means by which use of real encryption could be made inconvenient.
How is the DoJ going to force Signal or even Telegram to add a back door?