Attacks on encrypted communicxatiopn rising in Europe

[Robert J. Hansen]

> Why would we listen to anyone for that matter?

Ideally, because they present options that may work better than what we
currently have.  Privacy absolutism -- the position that there is *no*
justification for infringing on individual privacy, even in the case of
serious crimes -- doesn't offer anything better than what we currently
have.  In fact, many people would think it was a lot worse.

> until he talks"). In hindsight it was a bit ill-formatted to put it
> between the methods I did agree with. I'm OK with technical attacks, I
> am firmly against obligations to talk or pressuring people to talk with
> torture, prison terms or fines.

Okay, I can understand speaking glibly: thank you for clarifying you're
opposed to that.

But if you're okay with technical attacks, you're not a privacy
absolutist, either.  If your solution is targeted malware, remote
exploits, Trojans, and the like, then you're permitting the government
to do an awful lot to subvert privacy.