|
|
|
|
|
|
by at-fates-hands
4746 days ago
|
|
|
The slippery slope in all of this is the application of the law. Sure, if the government was going after someone like Steve Muller (http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2008/04/gsm-researcher/) you'd want him to be able to keep his stuff from prying eyes. What about a Suadi National accused of plotting terror attacks in NYC? Would you want the same laws applied to him? Or would you want to able to force someone like this to de-crypt their files in order to stop an attack? I really don't know what the right answer is, but sometimes laws intended to keep us safe, also give shelter to bad guys. |
|
|
Americans inherently know this. We were brought up with the idea that freedom isn't free and that the price of liberty is eternal vigilance. Just because it is more convenient to violate the civil liberties of all to catch a few bad actors doesn't mean it is what our country is all about.
Europeans often find that sentiment ridiculous. But that is just the cost of privacy and liberty - one that our forefathers were welcome to pay.