I do not consider pre-emptive interception capabilities to be a public or government responsibility. Warranted interception can be helpful, but at this moment,

I do not consider pre-emptive interception capabilities to be a public or government responsibility. Warranted interception can be helpful, but at this moment, I am concerned more by the cyber war/terrorism rhetoric and its effect on my democracy (Canada, in my case) than I am by any threat of violence (we just passed a bill called S-7 that allows for 3-day holding without charge, and 12 month conditional probation without charge, RE: "terrorism"). We usually follow the US example, so I watch these subjects with interest, and have been amazed at the choice to walk people out of their own homes in Boston, at gunpoint, "for their own protection." I'd rather take my chances and protect myself against terrorism. (A person's home used to be his "castle.") Yes, privacy (and encryption, for example) empowers bad people - but it empowers the good ones too. Two wrongs don't make a right; I prefer to keep my freedom and strength than live in frightened "safety." So: encryption it is, even though it costs. I wish governments and concerned citizens could see how they are creating the very walls that alienate and anger. (FWIW, Canada had a bill called C-30 on the table last year with similar interception obligations and fines, and even though the government could have just passed it, because Canada is currently a political dictatorship, a huge number of Canadian's stood up and figuratively shouted in unison: NO. All it takes is saying I'm not afraid: I'm not afraid of terrorism, I'm not afraid of guns, I'm not afraid of other people's freedoms; no, I won't give away any more of my dignity. In fact, I want it back.)