[duaneb]

> The truth is that a large number of Americans believe that the FBI should have access through consumer encryption.

This is not a democracy, this is a republic. We should hold our elected (and appointed) officials to higher standards than we hold our voters. Just because our public is uneducated does not excuse the elected government taking advantage of an uneducated public to seize powers they did not have before.

[snowwrestler]

> This is not a democracy, this is a republic.

I'm sick of reading this too.

We have a representative democracy in the U.S. We also have a republic. The two terms are not contradictory.

"Representative democracy" tells you how decisions are made--we select a few citizens to make decisions on our behalf. "Republic" tells you who is sovereign--in the U.S. the individual citizens have the right and power to rule, and have used that to construct our own government.

Counter examples:

The U.K. is a representative democracy, but not a republic. It's a monarchy.

North Korea is a republic but it's not a democracy. It's an autocracy.

[duaneb]

Just because you call something a democracy doesn't mean it is so. If something is a republic, you can call it a representative democracy analogously, but not literally. Just like a zebra is a striped horse but not, you know, a horse.

Can you address anything I wrote that had substance?

[snowwrestler]

I don't call the U.S. a democracy, it is a democracy. The only way to say that it is not, is to change the definition of the word "democracy."

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=define+democracy

> Can you address anything I wrote that had substance?

That our elected officials represent the disparate opinions of the people they serve might be their personal failing, in your view, because you disagree with them on this issue. I disagree with them too! Encryption should not be backdoored, the FBI is wrong--I agree on all those scores.

I just don't think that the only reason the encryption conversation continues is because of corrupt political elites. It's not. The conversation continues at the public level too.

The reason that matters, is what we can do about it. If public opinion is the problem, then a public campaign can try to move it. If corrupt political elites are the problem then... we throw up our hands? Isn't that just rationalizing despair and inaction?

edit: clarity

[duaneb]

> http://lmgtfy.com/?q=define+democracy

This definition is meaningless. Under this definition, every government is a democracy. People technically voted for Kim Jong Un.

> That our elected officials represent the disparate opinions of the people they serve might be their personal failing, in your view, because you disagree with them on this issue.

No, their personal failing is not thinking for themselves.

> I just don't think that the only reason the encryption conversation continues is because of corrupt political elites. It's not. The conversation continues at the public level too.

I do agree—however, the elected officials are still failing their constituents by not actually understanding what encryption is. They have a responsibility to be educated when their constituents are not.

[snowwrestler]

> the elected officials are still failing their constituents by not actually understanding what encryption is. They have a responsibility to be educated when their constituents are not.

I totally agree with you on this. Here's a sliver of hope that progress is possible...

http://fortune.com/2016/03/10/apple-fbi-lindsay-graham/