politicians and police are always on the alarmist campaigns against encryption. These campaigns are morally corrupt. You have as much moral right to defend your data, you must defend your territory. You are in the moral law when buying a safe, and you are in the moral right when you encrypt your data and correspondence.
Let's take a look at where encryption phones and phonecalls down on the list of our seven intimacies :. the intimacies of the body, correspondence, data, finance, identity, location and territory
This is just as important and well card to another. Since the data and correspondence are fuzzy concepts, we will instead look the privacy of territory. Do you have the right to an enclosed space where others can not intrude? Specifically, do you have the right to block a piece of territory, so that person else can open it?
Do you have a moral right to have a safe?
If you have a moral right to have a safe, and therefore a moral right to privacy of the territory (even in the face of legitimate opponents), then you also have the right moral encryption, which provides data confidentiality and correspondence
. It used to be that encryption is only used by one) tinfoil hat conspiracy theorists and b) the technically savvy people when they had a sensitive subject to discuss. Therefore, it was allowed to slip into the suspicion in itself. There is nothing suspicious about encryption, and above all, there is nothing immoral about it.
is the territory. digital territory. Everyone has the right to defend their terrority, and nobody has the obligation to help someone else - including specifically the law enforcement officers - to invade the territory. (If you have a safe, it is the police to open if they want to open, you are not obliged either to help the invasion of your territory.)
of course, you have a moral right to have a safe, and this translates directly intimacies data and correspondence. Encryption is not only appropriate. It is the morally correct thing to do and defend.
"But if encryption is legal," the object clueless politicians, "the criminals will be able to use it!"
This is true.
This is also true for a safe common. This does not change the fact that we consider an inalienable right to lock our stuff in the safe, so no one but us will be able to access it
in fact, this idea specifically includes the enforcement .: an opponent is an opponent, regardless of whether they are acting legally or not. Now, the application of the law will not likely be able to break a safe with a casual effort and limited budget, but given the time and resources, they will probably be able to break safely. in other words, a safe are just like encryption
This is also an important guarantee :. If law enforcement can not break a safe (or encryption) without the expense and effort, which also means privacy invasions won 't - can not - be used without carefully examining each individual case. We lost that account. We need to do things to bring it back. Like encrypt.
Privacy remains your own responsibility. Encrypt your data and correspondence.
0 Komentar