There's a real, reasonable fear at the heart of this legislation.
If encryption becomes widespread and providers/individuals start using it correctly, then it will greatly hinder law enforcement's ability to gather physical evidence for certain types of crimes.
At the end of the day this is just another situation where we have to weigh the positive of greater freedom against the negative of the impunity this freedom may provide to those breaking laws that we all support.
I don't know what the answer is, but acting like anyone who supports this legislation is just after more control is immature.
Encryption is already widespread, with WhatsApp alone just enabled p2p encryption to 1b users. Full disk encryption has been around for 20 years.
There's nothing anyone can do about this, you cannot hinder encryption, it is just pure math.
You can ban encryption all you want, it will never ever stop terrorism in any way. All that will do is harm the good people that have legitimate reasons to protect their secrets from everyone, not the bad people.
Encryption does not create impunity for anyone. Crimes are still crimes, and plenty of criminals were caught, prosecuted and convicted before mass surveillance.
I'm sorry -- "if encryption becomes widespread and providers/individuals start using it correctly" is what everyone technical agrees should happen. The spread should be as wide and as comprehensive as possible.
To suggest otherwise is to say that security isn't important at all.
Or could you concretely suggest some areas where communications shouldn't be encrypted? Offer up some sacrificial lambs.
It is really sad, that it is likely that you do not even understand how this is related to your last comment on HN about government planted child porn.
>acting like anyone who supports this legislation is just after more control is immature.
It's mostly driven by fear based emotional responses rather than logic, the terrorists have successfully hijacked their amygdalas[1], a classic social engineering technique.
When a target cannot be directly and effectively neutralized, scare tactics are used to make the target compromise themselves.
"As for us, we behave like a herd of deer. When they flee from the huntsman's feathers in affright, which way do they turn? What haven of safety do they make for? Why, they rush upon the nets! And thus they perish by confounding what they should fear with that wherein no danger lies. . . . Not death or pain is to be feared, but the fear of death or pain. Well said the poet therefore:—Death has no terror; only a Death of shame!"
Quotes in the linked article seem like lawyerly smokescreen to me. Assuming that the government planted child porn on this guy is no more correct than assuming he's guilty before a trial.
If encryption becomes widespread and providers/individuals start using it correctly, then it will greatly hinder law enforcement's ability to gather physical evidence for certain types of crimes.
At the end of the day this is just another situation where we have to weigh the positive of greater freedom against the negative of the impunity this freedom may provide to those breaking laws that we all support.
I don't know what the answer is, but acting like anyone who supports this legislation is just after more control is immature.