What about as a boring person who does think the state should be allowed to focus the Eye of Sauron on people?
And that person doesn't have to be anti-encryption, just anti-bad opsec.
And that person doesn't have to be anti-encryption, just anti-bad opsec.
Sure. Not everyone has to agree with me. I think it is unpopular to be happy about intelligence agencies spying on us. So hopefully I can win over some of the in-between people by causing them to fully face their position. But if someone just fundamentally disagrees with me, I think this tactic won’t work. Coming up with arguments for people who fundamentally disagree with you is pretty difficult.
> And that person doesn't have to be anti-encryption, just anti-bad opsec.
I’m not sure I follow here. But in general, for example I don’t think it is reasonable to expect non-technical people who aren’t, like, spies to have perfect opsec all the time. So, like journalists and activists, they will inevitable slip up sometimes, anything we can do to mitigate that is good.
So you really have a disagreement on terms, not on merits.
It isn’t really clear to me if you are actually trying to make these arguments in and of themselves, or if you think they add light to the first point. So, I’m not sure how to respond, sorry.
I think we should have lots of encrypted communication out there, to make it a normalized day-to-day thing, and to make bulk surveillance more difficult.
You are right that “eye of Sauron” evokes a different idea, which is more like investigating a specific known target. If done correctly that could be OK in some cases.