Signal walks the line between anarchism and pragmatism
&gt; The motivations that led to end-to-end encryption going mainstream lie far out on the political fringe. The original impetus for Marlinspike’s entry into cryptography, around 2007, was to challenge existing power structures, particularly the injustice of how (as he put it) “Internet insecurity is used by people I don’t like against people I do: the government against the people.” But sticking to anarchism would imply an almost certain defeat.<p>What a reflection of the massive political shift from individual liberty and &#x27;all men are created equal&#x27;, for which privacy is necessary, to compliance with power. Now that&#x27;s &quot;far out on the political fringe&quot; and even &quot;anarchy&quot;?<p>I know most people don&#x27;t think philosophically about it, but Signal&#x27;s principles are pretty mainstream American (and probably other free countries), afaik - or knew?<p>EDIT:<p>&gt; Signal has managed to maintain an unusual focus on the autonomy of the individual, a wariness of state authority, and an aversion to making money, characteristics that are recognizably anarchist.<p>Doesn&#x27;t that describe, to different degrees, a great many open source projects? Mozilla? BSDs? etc?<p>EDIT2:<p>I think that&#x27;s what the article really is about: The author&#x27;s theory that this sort of vision is utopian, very fringe, and therefore impossible.<p>It&#x27;s pretty shocking to see it in Wired, which once led in exploring, beliving in, and bringing to the world&#x27;s (or its readers&#x27;) attention exceptional innovations well beyond the conceptions of the norm.<p>Now they doubt such things ipso facto. Nobody seems to remark on the extraordinary <i>reactionary</i> philosophy that is flooding the public space, the antithisis of creativity, freedom, innovation, and &#x27;intellectual curiosity&#x27;.