Keeping Encryption Elitist
The example about LSD and expertise is not applicable. Honestly I skipped most parts as the intent of the presentation was obvious, please excuse myself. You only need Uran for a thermonuclear bomb, just need to enrich it a bit.<p>&gt; The world we live in contains fairly nasty people<p>With the exception of government...<p>&gt; &quot;any public chatting service owned by a for-profit company needs to keep decryptable copies of all messages on its servers or 12 months&quot;<p>And how many of these services are interested in analyzing private correspondence? Some already did that of course and I am positively surprised they had that on offer, but gladly some wise users expected it.<p>The examples you bring forward about potential dangers aren&#x27;t solved with weakening encryption. Also the believe that government wouldn&#x27;t like to know what people are talking about because that is a massive advantage for political framing and campaigning. And these ambitions always win out in the end, there are numerous examples of that beyond some NSA employees spying on their &quot;loved&quot; ones. All these negatives should just be ignored?<p>&gt; It&#x27;s a laughably easy problem, the fact that terrorist attacks are as low [...]<p>exactly.<p>Have you ever heard of Hong Kong and the situation there? Are these people terrorists? Should their communications be able to surveilled by the state?<p>&gt; End-to-end Encryption should be easily available for communications between any two individuals, up until considerable proof shows that this is untenable if societal cohesion is to be kept.<p>Disturbing social cohesion is actually a crime in many modern democracies but it doesn&#x27;t get applied very often because people got more liberal with time. I can of course frame it as anything I would like. You could prosecutor people that show too much skin on twitter for example. It has fallen out of time. I think it is good that people are allowed to ruffle some feathers. Keeps life interesting.<p>I disagree and think this line of reasoning is mostly founded on fears.<p>Encryption needs further improvement and should be made available to everyone as easy as possible. TLS is a channel encryption and needs to stay but further payload encryption should be developed and become standardized.<p>So I would reject this alleged compromise.<p>&gt; But providing encrypted channels of communication as the default servers no purpose and can be rather dangerous.<p>That the world is filled with nasty people was your argument, but I would let it stay here, even though I disagree.