>>>>>>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 ...
>>>>
>>>>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.
>>>>
>>>>.
>>>
>>>I really love being called naive. Wake up and smell the coffee, "the state" which is not some other thing but is something you are part of is not perfect.
>>
>>The "state" in my post means the government of a country, those in power and who manage a country. I am not the government. As members of society we appoint a government to manage the country on our behalf. They must therefore be open to criticism (and praise where due) and be held accountable. And they must uphold the rule of law and the rights of its members of society.
>>
>>>Neither is your "my privacy is a holy grail and inviolate".
>>
>>Didn't claim either of those points. Where do you get that from.
>>
>>>If you want to be completely private go off grid completely and get out of "the state".
>>
>>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". If current government thinks it needs to be able to open encrypted then it should and the right and wrong can be tested in court and at the next election. 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.

Shure that you are not in the electoral livestock only?

And encryption or not encryption, would you use the normal ways of communication to anything else the fire if you where a terroist? The basic is that metadata is more then enough. Patterns who talks when. (The US Empire is known to kill suspects just to see if the patterns of comm are changing ... ) It's plain idiotic to use for anything meaningfull.
Weak encryption is pointed to spy on everybody - and not only by the state - include any corporation simply into it. This is valuable data that makes big money. What do ou think google (et al) is handling out mail service / webspace for free? TANSTAAFL!