Re: Pervasive encryption: Pro and contra

C5.2 Itís unethical to insert encryption into peopleís connections
without their consent.
This has an inverse:
P3 : It's unethical to have presumed-private conversations not be

Arguably to P1 (protection) : this is about expectations of users.


On 17 November 2013 14:03, Tim Bray <> wrote:
> There has been a *whole lot* of traffic on this subject.  Itís fascinating
> that the meeting of minds is so difficult, and any possibility of that
> happening is made more difficult by the discussion skewing back and forth
> across the road.
> To help sort things out in my own mind, I just went and read the last few
> hundred messages and attempted to curate the pervasive/mandatory encryption
> arguments, pro and contra.  Itís in a Google doc thatís open to comment by
> anyone:  Hm, is there a handy wiki platform somewhere
> that can stand up to the pressure?
> I donít know if trying to organize the talking points is generally useful,
> but I sure found it personally useful; maybe others will too.
> Disclosure: I remain pretty strongly in favor of as much mandatory
> encryption as we can get, so that may have filtered my expression of the
> issues.  I've version-stamped this: 2013/11/16, and promise not to change it
> in case people comment on it.

Received on Sunday, 17 November 2013 08:45:52 UTC