4 ms·

An all out attack on encryption is an all out attack on free speech. It is no different than using shorthand, or symbols, or a made up language to communicate.

• chimi 7y ago
  You make me wonder if perhaps new languages evolved for exactly this purpose. To conceal ideas and thoughts from the enemy.
  • Intermernet 7y ago
    There are elements of this. Two examples: 1. Younger generations develop colloquial terms that the older generations don't understand. This allows the younger generation to communicate more freely. 2. Highly specialised positions develop "jargon" which, although arguably allows more accurate and concise communication, also allows elements of protectionism and in-group gatekeeping. Both of these examples are more complex than just "To conceal ideas and thoughts from the enemy", but it's definitely a motivating factor in language evolution.
    • beefalo 7y ago
      Do you have any citations for [1]? My intuition is that it's no different than the jargon mentioned in [2], more of just a made up term to more accurately/efficiently communicate.
      • Intermernet 7y ago
        No citations, just personal experience :-) Many nicknames for drugs, code words for parties, colloquial terms for sex have survived the 20+ years since I last had to use them. EDIT: An interesting article that may aid in further research: https://www.theguardian.com/media/mind-your-language/2016/apr/08/in-with-the-in-crowd-secret-languages-can-confuse-exclude-or-empower https://www.theguardian.com/media/mind-your-language/2016/ap...
  • nxpnsv 7y ago
    It certainly has happened, but there are many other reasons. An almost modern example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polari https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polari
• bayesian_horse 7y ago
  Free speech doesn't come into it at all. If a government wants to limit your free speech it will do that, no matter the technology. In western society, the defense of free speech has to be done in the open, and through the democratic process. Lack of end-to-end encryption in Facebook does not affect anybody's free speech rights. Not even in authoritarian countries, because those will just block facebook if they can't crack it or haven't already.
  • edoo 7y ago
    The government not allowing FB (a legal citizen of the united states) to use encryption is a violation of FBs right to free speech, exactly as if they did it to your grandma's home server.
    • bayesian_horse 7y ago
      Nobody is talking about not allowing Facebook to use encryption. In fact, they are explicitly allowed to use it but encouraged not to make it the default setting. Also, privacy must not be confused with free speech. Free speech rights center on public speech, because "private speech" is not amenable to censure. Surveillance and prosecution of of private communication is neither a violation of privacy nor free speech, but rather an issue of authoritarian legislation. Encryption has absolutely nothing to do with free speech as long as you are in a jurisdiction with an actual right to free speech. If you aren't, well, good luck convincing those authorities. Also, a right to free speech does not entail a protection from all consequences of such speech, only from those consequences a government can dish out.