You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

emr comments on Open thread, Jan. 19 - Jan. 25, 2015 - Less Wrong Discussion

3 Post author: Gondolinian 19 January 2015 12:04AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (302)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: emr 19 January 2015 06:06:41PM 7 points [-]

Frame attempts to limit the use of encryption as unilateral disarmament, and name specific threats.

As in, if the government "has your password", how sure are you that your password isn't eventually going to be stolen by Chinese government hackers? Putin? Estonian scammers? Terrorists? Your ex-partner? And you know that your allies over in (Germany, United States, Israel, France) are going to get their hands on it too, right? And have you thought about when (hated political party) gets voted into power 5 years from now?

A second good framing is used by the ACLU representative in the Guardian article: You won't be able to use technologies X Y and Z, and you'll fall behind other countries technologically and economically.