I didn't like the original post that much but I tink this one is worse because it's almost entirely emotional. Statements like this: "When you say “law enforce

I didn't like the original post that much but I tink this one is worse because it's almost entirely emotional. Statements like this: "When you say “law enforcement”, who exactly do you mean? Employees of the United States? Of Oregon? Of Crow Wing County, MN? Of Italy? Of China? How are you going to sort out the jurisdictional disputes, and how are you going to ensure that only “good” law-enforcement organizations get to snoop?" are just knee-jerk. You sort it out the same way you do any issue of public authority. Legislation, regulation, courts, etc. Privacy is not binary. Technically it's perfectly possible to design differentiated systems that can be adjusted and provide transparent access when needed. And that's probably what we need the most, not just when it comes to crime but also user choice. Way too often these days you have extreme solutions on one end that result in users opting for unsafe choices just due to usability. There needs to be much more debate about how systems are designed so that they give authority access when needed in a way that has checks built in and protects users as much as possible. Authority has legitimate interest in preventing crime, this has wide public support in many cases, and individuals have legitimate interest in privacy, but neither is limitless. Any system designed for communication ought to reflect that or else we're just wasting resources on ideological debates.