Encrypting private data and private communications is now an ethical duty

As I said in another comment, I'm not expecting everyone to actually learn and install those tools, I want all the people who can use them and modify them build on top and provide tools that spread the use of these technologies. I don't expect everyone to configure tor hidden services, but if we can make it so that most traffic goes through tor, because the clients and the servers use it by default, then that will be a nice step. The Tor Browser makes using tor way simpler, if that could be used and advertised as a default browser, that would be great.

To me, the sociological aspect is in the way we act together as a society, helping others do what we think is good, providing support. Not simply how one is expected to somehow learn and do everything out of nowhere.

> A duty in one community may very well be a prohibition in another.

I think the standard example of this is whether you marry your brother's widow.

On the other hand, there is a large list of phenomena that are observed in every documented culture, such as marriage.

I meant that in the fundamental sense, that I can do whatever I want and nobody can stop me, as long as I have the most physical - in the sense of physics - power. The only thing that I can not do is force others to do things I want them to do, they can always decide to refuse and die. Poisons are just molecular bullets. Betrayal, manipulation, and propaganda, not sure how they would achieve anything if I have enough power.

In actual practice, I mostly see Natural Law cited as an excuse for homophobia, used in a manner which is transparently reasoning backwards from conclusions. I imagine that actual philosophers might occasionally make better use of it, but I am put off the idea.

> The very microsecond that some tragedy befalls the populace, the very first thing people start screaming about is how pathetic the government is for not knowing about the tragedy in advance and preventing it.

I agree with you that is true but is there any proof that even if all telecommunications were open completely to the governments, it would be possible to stop every incoming attacks/tragedies?

Because that is the current justification that is being used now. Oh if only we could see your Whats-app messages, then we'll be able to stop these horrors. I am not inclined to agree that this would solve anything at all.

Notwithstanding the umber of false positives that this system would generate, there is no risk zero.

> We don't live in 1923. We live in 2023. You can't put a secret agent in a room with a bunch of nefarious terrorists anymore, because those terrorists don't sit in a room with each other. They talk on Telegram. We, the tech nerds and libertarians obsessed with privacy and the freedom to do whatever we want, have been fermenting a technological arms race for decades. The more bullet-proof encryption we create, the more the government has to encroach on our privacy to do the thing we require them to do: keep us safe from the real threats that do actually exist in the world, and hide among us.

This argument does not make sense.

We accept a certain level of risk that is inherent to living in a modern civilization.

We don't ban cars even though the damage they do to people each year is infinitely greater than terrorist attacks. How many people have died of terrorist activities in the last year vs the number of people who have been killed/maimed by reckless/ drunk drivers?

So on this basis alone, if we aim at reducing the global number of preventable deaths, then banning cars would be the best thing to do.

> If you want more privacy, paradoxically, the best thing would be to actually give up some privacy. Telephones and letter mail have been automatically scanned for like 50 years, and this doesn't seem to concern us, and was good enough for intelligence services that they didn't need to collect anything more. So we could stop sending all our communications with bulletproof encryption. We could give the federal government a bypass. Allow the security services to peek under the covers. If we give them some leeway, they won't feel the need to compromise all privacy and security. But if you give them nothing, they literally have no other recourse but to compromise everything, because they don't know where to look and they have no leads.

This solution only works if the government that is doing the monitoring decides to keep it's pinky promise that it won't use this info to get rid of political dissidents or groups of people that are not acceptable/needed anymore.

Is there any reason to believe that a government that gets all this data would use it only for the good of its citizen and not to target certain populations?

Is there any reason to believe that this data would be kept from being shared without consent?

If we look at the last century of history, any time a government has been granted such access, it used it to the detriment of it's citizen and kept themselves in power trough coercion and threats targeting any one who dared resist them.

So forgive me for not wanting to share even more of my private life with someone would may use it later against me.

Finally, we both know that there is no such thing as backdoor for the good guys only, if it exist it will be exploited by foreign actors as soon as possible.

> Nobody wants the government snooping on them. But if you really can't handle any level of surveillance at all, tell your elected officials you no longer want any federal or state intelligence services, and deal with the consequences. When the nation falls to all the other nations' intelligence apparatuses and covert operations, you will decry it and ask why the government did nothing to stop it. You simply can not have your cake and eat it too.

This is straw-man argument. Just like the argument about saving the children now. So you don't want to have the government read all your messages, and watch your private conversations, surely you must be a child abuser or a friend of the terrorists. Give me break.

More to the point of your comment, how would opening my private life to the government protect my country from being targeted by a foreign government?

> You simply can not have your cake and eat it too.

And that was exactly my point about the coming out with it already. It seems that the governments in the Western world are hellbent on making sure that they are perceived as freedom loving, democracy loving states. This stance comes with all the posturing regarding China and Russia when in fact they dream to have the same access.

So why the charade? Let's call a spade a spade.

If you want access to every thing I read, every single thing I type, every image I share, then this is not freedom. This is a digital prison and I would very much appreciate it if they could stop lying to our faces and be honest about it.