It takes a refined form of cynical misanthropy and tanky statism to believe that on balance, people are undeserving of even having the option of their private affairs being unexamined by the authorities, and that to even attempt to hide something from their eyes is to become a criminal.

There is already a tenuous balance in terms of power and consent between the governing and the governed. On balance, more harm is done to me by those in political / financial power than by the average criminal.

I'm not convinced handing governments omniscient surveillance is worth the price it exacts.

▲

bigbadfeline a day ago | parent [-]

This quote from the original article reveals its author's fruitless strain to justify his ridiculous idea:

"(Note that IT liberalists who claim encryption is a human right never realize this should also include the right not to be forced to use encryption against one's will.)"

It would be true in context only if the users were given two options, like two buttons: "Click here for strong encryption" and "Click here for breakable stuff".

Who would click the breakable stuff? Yeah, me neither.

	▲	hex4def6 a day ago \| parent [-]
		Yeah, utterly laughable. I'm not even sure who he's railing against with that. Is it violation of my human rights that I'm "forced" to use IPv4 or TCP/IP by my ISP, or HTTPS by my bank? As far as being "forced" to use encryption; unless I'm missing something, I can't think of a law that would preclude my transmission of communications with another individual in plaintext. I'm free to use HTTP instead of HTTPS on my website, should I so choose. And even if there were such a law, I'd be hard-pressed to figure what harm is being done to me (much less deprivation of human right).