Still, nobody was ever shocked that a judge could order letters to be open or telephones to be tapped. And yet, as soon as someone asks whether we should consider something similar for electronic encryption, HN reacts as if this was something never heard of, nor imaginable.
Treating a recent advancement in computing technology as the most natural of the things is not good advocacy of an issue.
This is false.
https://www.wired.com/story/smartphone-encryption-law-enforc...
https://www.cnet.com/news/privacy/encrypted-messages-dont-al...
https://www.vice.com/en/article/n7b4gg/anom-phone-arcaneos-f...
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-06-08/fbi-afp-underworld-cr...
https://www.wired.com/2015/01/silk-road-trial-undercover-dhs...
https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/11/mossad_hacked...
https://lawjournal.mcgill.ca/article/law-enforcement-access-...
You want a law that says we can't share prime numbers?
My only point is that discussions concerning the use of encryption must be accepted, because there is nothing inherently evil or unnatural in them. Don't let's get shocked any time someone proposes something that goes against some folks' credo, and let's debate the proposal in a constructive manner.