[martingxx]

I disagree that encryption is political. Fundamentally, it's a privacy and security mechanism and on its own it's no more political than locks, safes, paper shredders or curtains.

Because of the complex, un-intuitive nature of encryption, it mixed particularly badly with politics, and we're still suffering from the fallout of that now. (crypto wars 1)

Firefox and other application vendors who use those standards do end up being unavoidably slightly closer to politics (as demonstrated in this particular issue now), but I think Mozilla would do well to keep their goal simple - Protect user privacy where they can and explain to users when they can't.

A notice to the user like "You are using a key known to allow access to third parties" is just a fact and no more political than "the site you are visiting uses weak crypto standards" or similar.

[TazeTSchnitzel]

Privacy is political.

[salawat]

Privacy is apolitical. In fact, it is built into the very fabric of how the world works.

Does the grain of sand on a beach in Japan know whether or not I've just sat down in America? No.

Does the merging black hole/neutron star somewhere in the universe know that it will have consequences for small bags of carbon and water somewhere in the universe? No it does not.

Do you know what your child is actually thinking when you harangue them for the umpteenth time? No, you don't.

Lack of privacy/privileged access to information has always been the byproduct of active human effort. The natural state of things, is for information to only effect it's immediate locality. I.e. privacy.

Lack of privacy; therefore is the political subject. Subtle difference, granted, but that subtlety belies the consequences of letting things get out of hand.

Excessive "awareness" is a problem. There are those that relish the thought for the power such systems confer; they chant

"I can make you safer!" "You lose nothing!" "There is no danger in this!" "It is just the sacrifice a Good Citizen should be expected to make for the Greater Good!"

However, once the check is written, does the government ever relinquish it's right to privacy?

Nay. National Security. Just trust us.

Never mind that the assertion that led to the sacrifice of the initial liberty was that there were those amongst us who couldn't be trusted.

Nay, sir, I agree with GP. The breach of fundamental rights (or imposition of obligation) is the matter of politics, and very infrequently do I see any credible case made where something as fundamental as breaking the confidentiality of the most efficient means of communication anything but a power grab, and eventual tool of tyrannical oppression.