>>>You don't seem to understand the point being made which was originally this; 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. Therefore banning its use or requiring a backdoor invades the privacy of everyone while doing nothing to those who will bypass or use it anyway. It doesn't solve the problem that the government is suggesting it will.
>>>
>>>.
>>
>>ok. IMO we are the state. We elect our government and its not a "they" its an "us".
>
>Agree that state can mean an entire country, sovereign territory, and all within it. So I clarified to mean government.
>Disagree that I am the government or any part of it. It is an appointed organization.
>
>>If current government thinks it needs to be able to open encrypted then it should ...
>
>wow
>
>>and the right and wrong can be tested in court and at the next election.
>
>good luck with getting those rights back once lost and curtailing those powers once given
>
>>And if the bad guys have unbreakable encryption then it makes it a little easier to sport who the bad guys are as it makes them stand out.
>
>No it doesn't and you base this on the idea that the encryption is being used in an open comms like email but that is obviously not the only way it is used and even then can be masked.
>
>Let's leave it - we disagree.
>
>.

LOL yes we do. Have a good weekend.