|
|
|
|
|
by dopidopHN2
32 days ago
|
|
> That just means not enough people did it. Indeed. When enough people call that when they switch the meeting time and change the voting rules. ( we suing for that ) They still don't give a fuck. They really want to have more surveillance. Its like their is a vested interest ? > Until they make that illegal. What'll you do then? OK, let's make numbers illegal. Land of the free! Also, what does "making encryption illegal" entail, exactly? Does that encompass HTTPS? What does not scale exactly about using encryption at rest and point to point ? |
|
By whom? This is veering dangerously close to a "democracy doesn't work" argument which makes me less sympathetic and likely to believe everything else you say.
> Also, what does "making encryption illegal" entail, exactly? Does that encompass HTTPS?
Something like "we have to be able to read one of the ends of the pipe". HTTPS satisfies that definition already.
> What does not scale exactly about using encryption at rest and point to point ?
The fact that everyone has to use it for it to work everywhere. If the government tells big businesses "You can't use it" most of their users are automatically left unprotected for most of their activity.