3 ms·
Actually, I believe you have this backwards. In the time when the Constitution was written, conversations were private (concealed) by default. In order to liste
by ctoth 3y ago
Actually, I believe you have this backwards. In the time when the Constitution was written, conversations were private (concealed) by default. In order to listen to a conversation, you had to physically listen to the conversation. It is only in the last couple decades that mass access to this sort of conversation is even possible, so encryption seems to be restoring the same implicit right which always existed.
Said another way, if you want to analogize e2e encryption to a bazooka, then the government being able to read all of your private communications seems to be the equivalent of having someone constantly violating the fourth (remember that one?) amendment in your house, 24/7.
- gcanyon 3y agoSure, technology has benefitted the government as well. But if you're going to cite the fact that 250 years ago surveillance required live eavesdropping, then the weapon analogy needs to go back to the time before guns and other range weapons, when you had to physically shove in the pointy bit. In any case, my point was about the ability of civilians to conceal, surveillance is only relevant in its inability to keep up. To your main point, it's important to understand that most people don't feel the need to conceal their conversations from the government. Note: this is not an "if you're not doing crime, what do you need to hide?" argument. I'm just stating the fact that the reason the government can surveil so much information is because people don't choose to encrypt their communications. If they did, the government would have access to very little. Until/unless they set up cameras and microphones everywhere.