>>>Imagine someone invented a personal force field. You are invulnerable, thats your right. Terrorists and criminals naturally would love such a thing. Should the state be able to crack the force field or does your right to personal invulnerability outweigh that ?
>>
>>I just love the way these questions get framed... so whatever one answers is somehow wrong, but the frame itself is beyond questioning. My answer to the choice between totalitarian state and criminals/terrorists is a no, thanks.
>
>
>Those that believe that the ability to decrypt/backdoor all encryption have bought into state propaganda that this is the problem in preventing, or at least significantly reducing, crime and terror attacks. BS, because the ability to encrypt data and communications is out there already and the ability to mask their use and continue to use it, even in a total ban on its use, will still exist and be used by those who would operate regardless of the law. They also believe that the state will never abuse its powers ... hmm ...

If only terrorists/criminals would use encryption, then the main task would be reduced to unmasking - clearly an easier task.

>
>Why don't people look into the root causes of the problem instead of believing this BS ...
>
>I have found that often the same people who buy into the lets backdoor-all-encryption argument are also buying into the whole cashless society idea that is being promoted more and more in various countries.
>
.
Question is when will private ownership of precious metals be also curbed in those states ;-)