> How can any government accept a situation where communications are so secure that none of their agencies can break it? Does the government accept situation w

> How can any government accept a situation where communications are so secure that none of their agencies can break it? Does the government accept situation where it cannot read your own thoughts? How is that different? You could make the same argument about crime fighting here. If we could read thoughts, well, then there would be no unsolvable crime really. But is it desirable? So, no, even anarchists won't agree (neither me, and I am not an anarchist). The privacy comes to moral consideration too. Secret communication has no effect on the real world unless the people communicating actually act. Just like thoughts have no effect on the real world, unless you act. That's why we don't punish thoughts, but acts, and by that extension, we shouldn't punish communication, just acting based on that communication. Since these acts take place in the real world, criminal investigation is not obstructed. Edit: Maybe a clarification. You could make an argument that if you don't know communication between people, then it's harder to convict a specific person rather than just the group. But the same is true for private communication (it was always a problem, even before electronic communications), and is also true for communication between neurons (we cannot be sure if person acted willingly or is a psychiatric case).