Hacker News Reader

Comment by ktRolster | Hacker News Reader

The best way (IMO) is to make it unbreakable, and off by default. Then the people who care about privacy can have it, and the justice department can be happy most of the time.

View on HN

But does that imply that the technically inept don't deserve privacy, even if they want it? I think it does, and is therefore an unviable solution.

But I am sure a large portion of the people involved in activities where the government wants their info will have it turned on. I'm sure if Snowden's phone was encrypted they wouldn't go "Oh well ~90% of americans dont have encryption turned on so we'll just be happy with that."

Snowden is a poor example here. He worked in intelligence, a field the government would logically and rightly expect to value encryption. This, Snowden would fit in by using encryption here. He'd stand out if he didn't.

Then the people who care about privacy become targets.

They are already targets.

If it's opt-in, then encryption on your phone leads to 'what are you trying to hide?'

If it's on-by-default, then everyone has their phone encrypted, and it's never suspicious.

Everyone cares about privacy. What are you saying exactly?

Perhaps the middle part of the argument is missing? People who care about privacy == people who use encryption. People who use encryption already have all of their communications flagged and stored, if the rumors are true.

I disagree. This surely applies to the tech sector, but what about the wider world? Many people have all sorts of privacy habits (close curtains, have tall fences and hedges, they shred their mail or don't discuss wages, etc) yet don't understand or practice anything similar in the digital world.

Why do you think that this is the best way? Or do you mean the best way for the Justice Department?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com