[BubRoss]

Encryption keeps communication private, talking to someone directly keeps communication private. The analogy is extremely simple, it seems like you are intentionally trying to ignore it.

Do you think the government should be able to listen and see all of your communication?

[thestartup]

> Encryption keeps communication private, talking to someone directly keeps communication private. The analogy is extremely simple, it seems like you are intentionally trying to ignore it.

The analogy breaks down when considering that direct communication in a confined private space is not the same thing at all as creating virtual private / untraceable spaces on a global encrypted communication network, as it pertains to natsec.

> Do you think the government should be able to listen and see all of your communication?

It depends on context. Confined private spaces aren't the same thing as remote communications through the internet or airwaves. Globally deployed mass 2-party strong encryption meant to entirely lock out the ABC's at scale isn't the same thing as not stopping those who seek to use already-available 2-party strong encryption tools. Designing a system that still allows an "in case of emergency break glass" mechanism to stop terrorism/acts of horror is a good, responsible policy.

FWIW, I completely disagree with the actions of Edward Snowden. He should be executed.

It would be something if the NSA really is fighting to give privacy back to the people (stolen by corporate and entrenched government interests) while still being able to protect us. What a tough challenge that must be, to secure our comms while still having a way to perform sigint. God bless patriots who can see the bigger picture.

[BubRoss]

You are conflating untraceable and private. You keep saying two things are different without explaining why you think they are fundamentally different.

What do you think about the fact that the US literally has a right to privacy in their constitution?

Finally, let's see if you are consistent in your beliefs. Upload an archive of all your emails and chat logs to a public server so that anyone can read them, since having your communication intercepted does not seem to bother you.

[thestartup]

> You are conflating untraceable and private. You keep saying two things are different without explaining why you think they are fundamentally different.

The differences are obvious. Encryption isn't the same as microphone placement or privacy expectations in a home or vehicle. The article had nothing to do with microphones, homes, or vehicles. It was about data centers and encryption.

> What do you think about the fact that the US literally has a right to privacy in their constitution?

Again, the discussion is about encryption standards, not constitutional privacy. As I recall, constitutional privacy in terms of the internet, etc, have been explored by policy makers in detail.

> Finally, let's see if you are consistent in your beliefs. Upload an archive of all your emails and chat logs to a public server so that anyone can read them, since having your communication intercepted does not seem to bother you.

Your proposed litmus test has nothing to do with my implied or stated beliefs, at all. Frankly, that you're even proposing such a thing is concerning to me.

[BubRoss]

The difference between us is that I explained why I said what I said while all you have done is repeated your position with no deeper explanation, which I'm guessing is because you don't have a deeper explanation, just an emotional belief.

If you think that people should not have private communication on the internet, prove that you aren't a hypocrite and upload an archive of your emails and chat logs. If that bothers you, maybe your hypocracy and poorly thought out position on encryption should bother you.