I am very interested in having you expand some of these points, because they're not clear to me yet. > I no longer think that end-to-end encryption is the righ

I am very interested in having you expand some of these points, because they're not clear to me yet. > I no longer think that end-to-end encryption is the right solution to human rights problems I agree with this sentiment. But I don't understand why you consider it significant. Of course, secrecy is (and always has been) a way to lessen the impact of human rights problems. But where was it suggested that it would solve human rights problems? > But let’s see if there are any uses of encryption — as opposed to signing and securing data - that are truly indispensable to society and are the right and best solution to solve the problem. I may be missing the point, but if I want to send a private electronic communication to someone (be it an email containing corporate secrets, a chat message discussing a sensitive topic, or a copy of my bank statements)... What do you propose instead of encrypting the communication channel? > checks and balances among the most powerful entities in the system [...] make sure it’s super hard to maintain a collusion for long Isn't a collusion exactly the way to break these rules founded on checks and balances? > you need to focus on architecting the governmen’t technology to be more benign in its rules This sounds great in principle. But - while I haven't exactly looked - I'm unaware of any government that's looking to be re-architected, or a concrete proposal for how that would look like. Can you point me to an example of at least the latter?