This is something I have often wondered: if cryptography didn’t work the way it does, would we still believe we are owed the privacy it bestows upon us?

In other words, there’s a conflation of “what cryptography enables” with “what governments shouldn’t do”.

That seems, from a policy POV, bad!

Follow

@_dm We often base policies on what's possible to ensure, or possible to prove to an auditor. For example, we might declare that owning a high power laser pointer is illegal, because pointing it at people is something that's hard to prosecute. Isn't this another example of such an approach?

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Qoto Mastodon

QOTO: Question Others to Teach Ourselves
An inclusive, Academic Freedom, instance
All cultures welcome.
Hate speech and harassment strictly forbidden.