> an amendment to the constitution guaranteeing the right for private individuals communicate over encrypted channels
I understand here on HN it looks so obvious, but if you stop and think for a moment it is no natural at all.
The only natural way of having a private conversation is directly from mouth to ear. Private remote communication never existed until recent technology made it possible during the last decades.
We are in the same situation as cars, where people have been walking for millions of years but little more than a century ago we got the ability to move freely along longer distances at previously unimaginable speeds.
I'm not against private communication, as I'm not against cars, but it's just normal that new things get regulated in a society. All countries are OK with driving being regulated (get a licence, always show a readable registration plate...), so why are we shocked every time someone proposes to regulate remote conversations?
I also understand the point that encryption is either breakable by nobody or by everyone (thus the thing about only authorities being able to eavesdrop is moot), but please stop assigning to a pinnacle of modern technology the same status as a natural human right.
> until recent technology made it possible during the last decades.
Julius Ceasar used encryption (poor, but effective at the time). The enigma machine was developed at the end of World War 1. Unless you have a very charitable interpretation of “last decades”, the premise of your argument does not stand up to basic scrutiny.
"normal" changes over time: a hundred years ago it wasn't normal to talk with literally all of your friends and family remotely all the time, nowadays it is.
Countries signatories of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights should respect Article 12:
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
> No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his ... correspondence
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.
Whether for one person or for everybody, eavesdropping requires encryption to be breakable. We must accept that serious discussion on this issue is not yet closed, and we must accept that one possible outcome is that encryption be banned.
Treating a recent advancement in computing technology as the most natural of the things is not good advocacy of an issue.
I'm not sure you read any of my comments, apart the one you replied to.
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.
I understand here on HN it looks so obvious, but if you stop and think for a moment it is no natural at all.
The only natural way of having a private conversation is directly from mouth to ear. Private remote communication never existed until recent technology made it possible during the last decades.
We are in the same situation as cars, where people have been walking for millions of years but little more than a century ago we got the ability to move freely along longer distances at previously unimaginable speeds.
I'm not against private communication, as I'm not against cars, but it's just normal that new things get regulated in a society. All countries are OK with driving being regulated (get a licence, always show a readable registration plate...), so why are we shocked every time someone proposes to regulate remote conversations?
I also understand the point that encryption is either breakable by nobody or by everyone (thus the thing about only authorities being able to eavesdrop is moot), but please stop assigning to a pinnacle of modern technology the same status as a natural human right.