5 ms·
No we shouldn’t. Never. Get that idea out of your head. It can never be secure or safe. This path leads to bodies hanging from the town square.
by randomhodler84 5y ago
No we shouldn’t. Never. Get that idea out of your head. It can never be secure or safe. This path leads to bodies hanging from the town square.
- charcircuit 5y agoSo you want encryption so criminals who would have otherwise been hung to be able to evade the law? It is pretty clear to me how a government may not approve of encryption for this usage.
- randomhodler84 5y agoYes. The state has no right to hang anyone. The state has no right to take a life. When you take away encryption, The Innocent and the Guilty are punished, the innocent disproportionately. That’s the beautiful thing: we don’t have to care what the government thinks. We are 30y into the encryption wars, and they cannot put the genie back in the bottle. It just is.
- charcircuit 5y ago>The state has no right to take a life. Some states have the death penalty. >When you take away encryption, The Innocent and the Guilty are punished, the innocent disproportionately. More information allows people to make a more informed decision. Punishing innocent people is a different problem separate from encryption.
- Zak 5y agoA cryptographically secure messaging system is either secure for terrorists and child molesters, or it isn't secure for anyone. Like most reasonable people, I want governments to try to prevent such crimes and to punish people who commit them. I do not, however wish to grant governments unlimited powers with which to pursue those goals. In particular, there are some bright lines which should never be crossed. Those include torture, punishment without a reasonable attempt at a fair trial, and outlawing tools for secure communication.