|
Sounds good, doesn't work. Security and freedom are "platonic" ideals. None of those exists in the abstract, as a real world thing, and you can't find one without the other in the wild (in a Disney-like world, maybe, but not in the real world, in the presense of others, that is people that want to deprive you of either/both, and can benefit from doing so). Trivially speaking, if some thugs can just come and beat you with no police or legal resources available to you, you don't have either pricacy or security. Both are at their mercy. You could of course defend yourself, but then you're still getting your freedom through security: it's just that in this case you're obligated to cater get that security on your own. So, we trade some freedom (giving state the ability to enforce laws, have police) in excange for security. And vice versa. But in any case, my point above was different: that what TFA descrives is not a tradeoff between privacy and security, it is giving up privacy for no real benefit. If anything, losing encryption costs in both privacy AND security. |