[logicchains]

>With that said I think the existence of the unregulated internet was likely anomalous. If ever you wanted privacy, you always have had to ensure the only two beings with access to the information communicated were yourself and the intended recipient. Is it really possible for a society to permit the existence of any large organisation for private communication without eavesdropping

Encrypted communication is always going to exist, even the Chinese government can't prevent two technically capable people (or people with technically capable friends) from communication securely, and it has the most powerful internet filtering system in existence. If you ban encryption, then only the criminals will have encryption, and that's much truer for encryption than guns because anyone with a bit of knowledge and a few kilobytes of source code can setup encrypted communication that's mathematically unbreakable.

[Affric]

Sure, two technically capable people that control their whole stack including hardware that they can ensure has not been backdoored and that it’s in no other way being monitored for unencrypted versions of the data.

100% banning encryption is stupid. But encryption not being banned doesn’t mean they can’t know what’s in those messages. There are other attacks.