[tobbob]

End to end encryption will surely make a government's task of protecting the public much harder. It allows paedos, terrorists and the like to communicate freely, and any efforts to track what they're up to must be an absolute nightmare.

The problem is, getting rid of encryption is replacing a bad situation with a disastrous situation. If you ban locks so the government can obtain access to the house of a terrorist, it means anyone now has access to anyone's house.

If this article is to be believed, it really feels like someone just hasn't thought this through. Surely there's tech people whose job is to explain this to politicians.

[wanda]

> protecting the public

Are you serious? This isn't high on their agenda at all.

> surely there's tech people whose job is to explain this to politicians

You have a very, very optimistic view of the world. If the government needs to get a consultant, they'll just find one who agrees with them.

[tobbob]

That's nonsense. It's all very well being ultra cynical, makes you feel high and mighty but what you're saying is absurd.

[wanda]

What I said is a long way from "ultra cynical"

And I didn't say it for any feelings of my own, or for anyone's feelings for that matter.

[Kim_Bruning]

E2E encryption is a form of security. It also protects the victims of these people; and it protects the police. So the question is not black and white, but more about shifting the balance between different people. And in this case I'm not sure it'd shift it in the right direction.

Drug dealers might be able to intercept police communications and be long gone. Pedophiles might be able to more easily track down their (next) victims. And terrorist groups tend to invest more and more in hacking units, and weakened defenses for police, off duty soldiers, and civilian targets can't possibly be a good idea.

Finally the big one is state level actors using weaknesses in encryption to attack, impersonate, and undermine politicians; spearphish infrastructure and communications personnel, and just cause all-round havoc.

In short, to paraphrase Franklin: Those who give up essential security to purchase a little security, err... end up with no security at all?

[stjohnswarts]

If you want your communications to go to the government, I suggest you make a zip file and send it off to them. Personally I don't think any phone, tech device, or anything else should have spying software on it. It should require a specific warrant for a person, place, and time limit. The government has Far Too Much power already, we don't need to give it any more. Sure it allows criminals to do crime but it also allows the rest of us to carry on our lives without being spied on at every turn.

[tobbob]

Are people only reading the first sentence I wrote? I made the argument in favour of encryption.

[CryptoPunk]

Yes, malicious actors can also be found within the government. This is the reason behind placing limits on the power of the state.