>>> Personally I'd like to know that terrorists didn't have completely secure communications and government fishing trips where dealt with through the courts and a free press.
>>
>>The efficacy of that strategy depends on the criminals not having access to encryption. But when you outlaw encryption then, like guns, only the outlaws will have it. Furthermore, it assumes that the problem in preventing the terrorist act is one of not being able to decrypt encrypted messages but that does not address the root causes of the problem.
>>
>>"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin
>
>I don't regard email privacy as an essential liberty for terrorists and criminals.
>and that Benjamin Franklin quote is always trotted out but could be classed as "things that smug people who don't have a problem say"
>
>Certainly the root cause of current terrorism needs to be addressed as its the only cure but when this round is over there will be something else because thats the way some people are and the regulated ability to intercept communication is vital in the same way that government organisations could allow someones post to be intercepted and read in the past.

You are on data processing? The problem on the old days mail interception versus automated e-comm interception is that idiots belive in results created by machines. If the dataprocessing mixes up something it's to easy to point the wrong person.
Also security by obscurity will not work. If there is a backdoor it will be found sooner or later and then your communication is open to anybody. Watch you insurance go up, your mortage rates grow, name it because you will be analyzed to the bone.
The basic rule is that encryption needs to be mathematical secure not obscure. The knowledge to the algorythm needs to be open.
If this is not true to the encryption you use, send unencrypted, it's the same but more environment friendly.