
Encryption in the Balance: 2015 in Review - oldgun
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/12/encryption-balance-2015-review
======
imh
I hate to write crappy comments, but my general reaction to this can be summed
up with ":-("

There are terrible changes in the government that feel inevitable. Whenever
these changes are beaten/voted down, we all celebrate that we've won, then
just a couple years later, they are reintroduced. This seems to repeat until
it passes. At this point it feels like our complete loss of privacy is
inevitable, and that at once terrifies me and deeply depresses me. There's
nothing that I can do to prevent this. Not in the long haul.

:-(

~~~
late2part
It's not inevitable. It will happen if we let it happen.

"Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should
look on and do nothing." J.S. Mill

~~~
Selfcommit
Further - I would say it needs to happen. Not because I'm excited about the
loss of privacy - but because until we lose that privacy, encryption won't
become something relevant to the average person. Encryption is a solution that
expects "bad actors". When government succeeds in overtaking privacy, better
encryption will prevail.

~~~
jlgaddis
One could argue that the (U.S.) government has already succeeded in overtaking
privacy.

------
ohthehugemanate
You know what really grinds my gears?

Trotting out the old trope of a "security vs privacy" dichotomy. It's not
true. It doesn't stand up to the most rudimentary analysis. But we hear it,
unchallenged, all the time. What about security measures that increase
privacy, like door locks, tall fences, or thick doors on airplane cockpits?
Security and privacy are fundamentally aligned. That's why even in the US 4th
"privacy" Amendment the wording is about the right of people to be SECURE in
their person and belongings.

The truth is, what we're offered is reduced security AND privacy. I've never
figured out what we're getting in exchange.

~~~
delecti
Your personal security is unrelated to the security in that argument. The idea
is that the nation can't protect itself if there are secrets it lacks access
to.

They want to spy on (potential) foreign forces within the country. To do so,
the privacy of your home would be sacrificed in the name of the security of
your country.

------
enginn
Equating crypto with armaments does nobody any favors. If crypto is an
armament, then the banks can be said to be wielding guns at the criminals who
are forever stressing their networks and trying to get in, or even their
customers, who require a more-than-mathematically strong peace of mind that
their money is safe from theft.

