> There were never days of "easily monitoring everyone's phones". If they wanted to monitor somebody's phone they had to go to great effort to do so. Oh, I tho

> There were never days of "easily monitoring everyone's phones". If they wanted to monitor somebody's phone they had to go to great effort to do so. Oh, I thought it was far easier to tap a phone than to break modern cryptography. Why was it not? > It's easier today than it has ever been for surveillance services to monitor large amounts of people. Not just because they have the access and computational ability to automatically search the content of messages, but also because more of our communications are long-distance or otherwise digitised than ever before. I would argue that this is changing though, hence the entire point of this Post. In the 90s no one encrypted anything, even https was laughable. More and more things are being encrypted. That's what this post is effectively about, no? The government is trying to stay ahead of the ball on cryptography and hoping to keep their ability to monitor everyone. Do you somehow disagree? I'm confused.