[tivert]

> Short of a law that forbids the math which makes encryption possible, this is noise.

So your "solution" is to break the law and suffer the consequences?

I think you misunderstand law. It's not about making things impossible, it's about making possible things unappealing so you won't do them.

[chrisfinazzo]

It’s impossible to break laws that are impractical and unenforceable?

That’s cute.

[tivert]

> It’s impossible to break laws that are impractical and unenforceable?

Huh? When did I ever say it was "impossible to break laws"? My entire point was it very possible to break laws, which is why those laws exist.

The government could pass a law banning encryption tomorrow and there would be nothing besides fear of the law stopping you from continuing to use it, if you so chose to so do (just like the law against battery doesn't mean there's a physical barrier making it impossible for you punch the guy standing next you on the subway). The actual and indented effect of the law would be the technology would be driven underground, and your choice to use it illegally would carry far greater risks to you.

Also, a law against using encryption wouldn't be unenforceable. At the very least they could punish you with a sentencing enhancement or use it as an alternative charge if it successfully cloaked whatever else you were doing (e.g. like how they got Al Capone for tax evasion, not any of the other stuff he did). And anyway, computers make surveillance and enforcement easier, not harder.

[EGreg]

That's not even true.

There is a lot more than A's fear of the law. There is also B, C and everyone else's fear of the law, compounding and creating chilling effects, to the point where there is simply no one who will carry your message, transact with you, provide a platform, or whatever, for the type of thing you want to break the law for.