In some ways, you can think of end-to-end encryption as honoring what the past looked like.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
For those trying to protect the past, it is a way of retaining power, status, money, a way a life, predictability, comfort, control, and a bunch of other things like that. It is a struggle against the inevitability of change.
The arc of technology is in the direction of unbreakable encryption, and no laws are going to get in the way of that reality.
I thought cryptography was a technique that did not require your trusting other people-that if you encrypted your files, you would have the control to make the choice as to whether you would surrender your files.
The past is open to all sorts of magical possibilities because it can't be verified. It's as we make it, so it seems to be entirely free. It seems to be completely up for grabs. But of course it's not.
The use of encrypted communication and data storage to shield terrorist coordination from intelligence and law-enforcement authorities is known as 'going dark.'
The past can be used to renew the present, not just to bury it.
Everyone is a proponent of strong encryption.
The concern is over what will happen as strong encryption becomes commonplace with all digital communications and stored data. Right now the use of encryption isn't all that widespread, but that state of affairs is expected to change rapidly.
I think there's something inherently dishonest in trying to go back and mess with the past.
There is an unarguable downside to unbreakable encryption.