anotherhumantoo

He said rooster grow. That's different and could cause quite a shock!

How do we help politicians to understand and listen to the dangers and potential abuses overlybroad or powerful laws can have on their population?

How do we help them see past what may very well be moral or even good intentions?

Hi, thanks for coming to talk to us.

When I've been talking about E2EE, I've been trying to warn people against comparing it to SSL and saying things like "banning E2EE will not make your bank transactions insecure because data encrypted over the wire, but accessible to the server isn't something that this bill is going after;" but, continuing that statement saying that it is still good to protect communications E2EE for other purposes.

I do agree that E2EE should remain; but, I don't think it's for what I hear a lot of the people on Reddit and similar argue for. Have I been spreading false information and misunderstanding the conversation? I want to go and correct what I've said to my friends if I've misunderstood it.

Further, aside from protecting conversations between protestors and minority groups' conversations, which I think I've seen you say here, what is some other ammunition I can use to defend E2EE?

My normal argument is that I believe that being able to look at someone's past chat conversations - say several years back - because they weren't E2EE is akin to retroactive wiretapping, which I consider to be incredibly wrong.

I want to say the right things and especially to not say the wrong things, is my argument that bank transactions, etc, aren't under attack with EARN IT wrong?

Many politicians want to look "tough on crime," especially during an election year.

Do you know how we can adequately try and encourage our elected officials that we don't want them to be "tough on crime" the way they're being it as they increase mandatory minimums, increase police spending, etc?