Two mathematicians could literraly communicate encrypted on a piece of paper, and there would be no way to stop them other than scaring them put of doing it with threats of violence, jail or similar.
There is an aspect ro this we have to acknowledge: we live in a world where everybody who knows how can create encrypted communications that are impossible or at least very costly to break. You cannot stop them from doing it.
If we ban that kind of communications, the only persons making use of it will be people who really have something to hide. Criminals, drug cartels, financial fraudsters, terrorists and the likes. Which also means they are the only ones who got to get safe communication channels.
Banning a safe and private way to communicate for billions of people because of some criminals that you cannot deal with is very bad deal to strike. The way I see it criminals most of the time have to interface with the real, physical world in some places and that's were you would catch them if that was your goal: money transactions, buying selling things, shipping, production, etc. Hell if you check any police report ever this is where they catch the people.
That makes you wonder if banning encrypted communications for a whole population is not rather a thing you do for politicial (power) considerations.
I agree with you when it comes to regular crime, and I'm not finding it difficult to defend my right to privately communicate with other individuals and small groups. We have always been able to do that, one way or another.
Publishing is a more difficult matter though. Wouldn't you say that governments should be able to demand transparency when someone distributes information to entire populations?
If someone was calling on millions of followers to kill members of some minority, would you still take the position that the distribution channel must remain off limits to governments trying to enforce encitement laws?
I also agree that publishing is a different thing, it is very much the difference between private and public communication.
Where a private group becomws of the size that posting there constitutes an act of publication is a matter of discussion, but I'd argue below a certain size any group chat can still be seen as private communications.
This means Signal groups with their lower size are in less jeopardy than a one-to-many telegram group.
>If we ban that kind of communications, the only persons making use of it will be people who really have something to hide. Criminals, drug cartels, financial fraudsters, terrorists and the likes. Which also means they are the only ones who got to get safe communication channels.
They wouldn't be safe, though. Merely using encrypted communication would be enough to warrant attention. Encryption only provides plausible deniability if everyone uses it for mundane stuff.
There is an aspect ro this we have to acknowledge: we live in a world where everybody who knows how can create encrypted communications that are impossible or at least very costly to break. You cannot stop them from doing it.
If we ban that kind of communications, the only persons making use of it will be people who really have something to hide. Criminals, drug cartels, financial fraudsters, terrorists and the likes. Which also means they are the only ones who got to get safe communication channels.
Banning a safe and private way to communicate for billions of people because of some criminals that you cannot deal with is very bad deal to strike. The way I see it criminals most of the time have to interface with the real, physical world in some places and that's were you would catch them if that was your goal: money transactions, buying selling things, shipping, production, etc. Hell if you check any police report ever this is where they catch the people.
That makes you wonder if banning encrypted communications for a whole population is not rather a thing you do for politicial (power) considerations.