The author seems to be calling a lot of things effectively bugs of encryption that I see as features. >Unfortunately, SSL prevents this. Unfortunately because

The author seems to be calling a lot of things effectively bugs of encryption that I see as features. >Unfortunately, SSL prevents this. Unfortunately because it means that if a website hosts partially illegal shared content, then the whole website is down and not just the subsets of it which are legally problematic. >But not everybody is entitled to privacy in all situations. For instance convicted criminals are not. Likewise many lawful professions need to be heavily surveyed for security. >a pilot hid his psychological problems from his employer and intentionally caused a plane to crash. In my view this is all valid reasons to encrypt everything. When prisoners are made such based on unjust laws, I say that anything that gives them their rights is good. Forcing a government to be very overt about its censorship of websites is good. Allowing people to hide their mental disorders in a world where a mental disorder is still seen as a moral failing is good. Encrypting everything enforces a positive change on society. Governments have to be more open about their censorship, allowing for greater discussion. Dissidents can communicate in secret, allowing for greater freedom. Critical systems have to be built so that a single individual cannot cause a large loss of life. Groups that are required to be surveyed must directly incorporate it into their systems As for the cost of using SSL, my understanding is that they are much overstated.