Gah. Look, I&#x27;m a big fan of end to end encryption and I&#x27;d like to see more of it out there, but this kind of post just shows we&#x27;re collectively missing the point these politician&#x2F;FBI types are making.<p>There is a huge difference between <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;gmail.com" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;gmail.com</a> type encryption and true end to end encryption. Pretending there isn&#x27;t will get us nowhere. The first type is sufficient to keep out ordinary criminals, competitors, even some governments. It is not sufficient to keep out the local government itself, which can still go serve an interception order on the service provider without the target being aware of it.<p>The upgrade in security between true end to end crypto and user-to-service-provider crypto is essentially, that governments can no longer do that. This is a positive for avoiding 1984 style dystopias, but obviously it&#x27;s rare or governments to worry about that risk (as they &quot;know&quot; they aren&#x27;t dystopian ... and don&#x27;t care to think about the future). When western governments talk about banning encryption, the only type they are really talking about is the type where they can&#x27;t go to some big corporation and get the data when they want it. And that type is still pretty rare. Actually almost nobody uses it.