> How can any government accept a situation where communications are so secure that none of their agencies can break it? In a democracy? A system in which (at

> How can any government accept a situation where communications are so secure that none of their agencies can break it? In a democracy? A system in which (at least in principle) the government is supposed to obey the laws and serve the needs of the people? > Essentially law enforcement do need to investigate crime. That logically breaks down to two questions: (1) Can the government listen in on anything it wants, and (2) does the government have that right? I won't presume to offer practical answers, but from a legal and constitutional standpoint, the answers are maybe and no. > Even this anarchist accepts this. An anarchist who accepts the government's right to listen in on anything ... isn't an anarchist. An anarchist who assumes that the government is doing that ... is a realist.