[d_theorist]

The point of secure communication is that nobody except the sender and receiver can read it. It's not that we all agree not to read it unless we really really think the people are bad. That is not security.

So, you either have secure communication systems available for everybody, and accept that the government is not always going to get what it wants, or you don't.

There is no such thing as a secure system that a third-party can read if it chooses to. By definition.

[TeMPOraL]

That would be the first system like that available to public ever. "It's not that we all agree not to read it unless we really really think the people are bad" is pretty much the definition of the secrecy of correspondence we had since pre-digital era.

[d_theorist]

We do not live in the pre-digital era. We do now have the technology to make secure communication possible. The question is whether it should be legal. I think it is overwhelmingly the case that it should be.

[mikeash]

People have been coming up with and breaking codes for thousands of years. The Caesar Cipher is not named such just because of some fascination with ancient Rome, for example.

One-time pads have been around for more than a century. Book ciphers can be quite secure and are centuries old. Criminals have been substituting phrases (e.g. "I gave the flowers to Wanda" -> "I murdered Bob the Snitch") since they've been aware they might be eavesdropped upon.

It has pretty much always been the case that you can encrypt your correspondence if you wish and then the state can attempt to read it anyway if they wish, and in states which require this sort of thing, if they can get a warrant.

Encrypting your correspondence has gotten easier. Nobody would have bothered to use a good cipher for "Don't forget to get eggs at the store" (meaning, actually get eggs, not some substitute phrase for "murder Bob the Snitch") twenty years ago, but now we do it all the time.

But that doesn't change a whole lot. Criminals who gave a shit about not being spied upon have always had ways to ensure it couldn't happen.

[datburg]

I am confused because what you are saying negates your main point, no?

[Puts]

I'd say the point of security in communication is being able to verify that all participants are who they say they are. More so than hiding the content from third party. ;-)

[Majestic121]

That's a debatable definition, to say the least. I'm not saying authentication is not an important part of security, but saying it is the only important part is quite a stretch, don't you think?

[Puts]

I was only trying to make a point because d_theorist seemed to only think security is about hiding the message from third party. Secure communication could even mean not to get a electric shock from your phone while using it.