[popnroll]

I think Gates is right. What is the problem with the government controlling communication? There are clear advantages, like handling illegal things. What are the disadvantages, the nude photo of your ex-girlfriend being analyzed by a machine?

[DethNinja]

Are you serious? Here are some disadvantages:

If you got connections to government, you can steal trade secrets from companies and enrich yourself and destroy the competition.

Destroy the lives of your political opponents by blackmailing.

Analyse and control the public sentiment to crush minorities.

I recommend you read a bit of stasi: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stasi

Also Bill Gates wants full government control because he is practically within the circles of government, obviously he would benefit from such agreements, but same cannot be said for plebs.

Anyhow, even if people like Bill Gates might benefit from such undemocratic agreements, tide can always turn against them and this level of censorship and surveillance can be used against them even more effectively than that is currently used againsts plebeians.

[popnroll]

All these points already exist today and for a long time.

[thekyle]

I feel like you can just look at what China or N. Korea are doing to see the downsides.

[JasonFruit]

I can't imagine living in a country with chief executives as diverse as Donald Trump, Barack Obama, FDR, and Ronald Reagan, and still being naïve enough to think there's no problem with the government controlling communication. You can't imagine an executive branch led by any of those people using that power inappropriately?

[HailMyThrowaway]

We don't want a government to be the arbiter of truth. Please read 1984 or consider the following:

Iraq clearly has weapons of mass destruction. Censor all communications claiming otherwise.

The American government is not performing mass surveillance on its citizens. James Clapper Confirmed this in a Congressional Hearing. Censor all communication claiming otherwise

South Korea's President is not being influenced by a cult leader. Censor all communication claiming otherwise

And countless other examples where government controlling communication would lead to censorship of topics that the general public MUST hear. One cannot make an informed decision without information.

[threatripper]

If you assume the government to be lawful and of high morals, of course. On the other hand, if your country is run by literal Nazis, the idea doesn't sound so good anymore. I hope your ancestry is pure of whatever lineage the rulers of the next fascist empire will be.

[popnroll]

But in that case you've already lost all freedom. What can be done in a fascist country by sending encrypted messages?

[threatripper]

You can organize resistance on all levels. People who put their life on the line for others can coordinate inside the country and with forces outside of the country. This is a huge danger to the ruling group since it is only a small minority and many people get not only their freedoms taken away but also their riches. Therefore before establishing a fascist government you must first control communication to a high degree to be able to suppress opposition effectively.

[popnroll]

Today you can follow the movements of anyone with technology. You're already screwed. The messages could not organize a resistance

[bryan_w]

Consider Russia (or the middle east) where it's still Not ok to be gay. Encryption helps you text your significant other without being thrown in jail or sent to a reeducation camp.