Comment by triceratops
2 hours ago
> Its like their is a vested interest ?
By whom? This is veering dangerously close to a "democracy doesn't work" argument which makes me less sympathetic and likely to believe everything else you say.
> Also, what does "making encryption illegal" entail, exactly? Does that encompass HTTPS?
Something like "we have to be able to read one of the ends of the pipe". HTTPS satisfies that definition already.
> What does not scale exactly about using encryption at rest and point to point ?
The fact that everyone has to use it for it to work everywhere. If the government tells big businesses "You can't use it" most of their users are automatically left unprotected for most of their activity.
> By whom?
By the company selling the product our cities are buying. In 2026, skydio DFR drones are a common example of blurry boundaries. Flock is another. Elected official "retiring" in the private sectors is common.
I'm engaging in the Democratic process. Are you ? Beside voting once a year ?
> If the government tells big businesses "You can't use it" most of their users are automatically left unprotected for most of their activity.
Absolutely. That's our near future. What does not scale in concern citizens and encryption hobbyist still choosing to use encryption from end to end?
If the US government make THAT illegal and actually enforce it.( djb style, like in the 90s ) Then I hope that technical folks would recognized that the Rubicon has been crossed.