[incognito209357]

You are thinking in absolutes. The politicians don't. They're fine with 99% solutions that cover the general population. The remaining 1% of dissidents will be dealt with by throwing them in jail, not by making the technology impossible to access so that they are forced to give up their efforts. Look at north korea or china for examples.

[soundwave106]

Turn the screws too tight though and the talented will leave for greener pastures. This is definitely happening in Turkey (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-42433668). This has happened in the past too, many times. You describe more the politicians that care more about their power then the general welfare of their nation. North Korea is a great example here.

China's an interesting case, as Xi Jinping is indeed turning the screws tighter as well, so far seemingly without any sort of harm. The historical record on this however suggests this is unwise. Time will tell, I guess. As I see it, at some point, censorship will end up conflicting with the type of knowledge / information needed to allow an economy to prosper.

On encryption, what "law and order" people need to recognize is that any crude tool "designed for law enforcement" will eventually be misused by criminals. Think if there was an enforced national house lock standard that includes a "police master key" that the police could use to open doors. I think most people would instinctively recognize the flaw, that in no short order a "police master key" would easily appear on the black market, making breaking-and-entering very easy (and consequently quite attractive to execute). Not sure why there are blinders on encryption, frankly the Internet needs way more security, not less.

[teekert]

Ok so, let's assume europe and the US will not be like N Korea and China. How is a politician going to stop me from developing an encryption algorithm and using it to send my friends a message? This sounds completely 1984, thought police level insane.