Essentially, all letters must be written on postcards under a regime like what Turnbull is proposing.
Taxes on income, rather than say natural resource consumption, means requiring a person to disclose their private transactions to the state under penalty of imprisonment. I'm not sure why you're not seeing the parallels between this and banning private conversations.
The Constitution doesn't guarantee a right to private communications. This is the problem. Period. The 4th amendment was sacrificed during the anti-drug/anti-black eighties. Right now the moment information leaves your home -- whether its a phone call or a letter or a bitcoin transaction -- the government has the right to intercept that. They don't even need a warrant in practice.
It's going to require a Constitutional amendment, really a new 4th amendment, that will clearly and unambiguously extend privacy to a person's communication and data. Complaining about taxes on barter isn't going to help and is nothing but distraction.
That people choose to deny any link is not surprising.
Like I said, society has accepted these classes of restrictions on private interaction, and that means it will be very hard to make a coherent argument against prohibiting private communication. Such arguments will be hobbled by arbitrary judgments that this private interaction ought to be free from interference, invasion or censor, while this other private interaction should not. Cognitive dissonance will make a concerted push against prohibitions on private communication difficult.
As for the US Constitution, that only relates to the US. The global question will be decided by the majority's perception of the morality of right to privacy and autonomy.
Tax is a different subject and I agree the way the system works now is suboptimal however paying tax is an important part of maintaining a healthy and functioning society.
Banning private conversation however is not beneficial to individuals or society. There is no reason anyone would suggest this approach unless they were planning to exploit it in a nefarious fashion. I would much prefer to live in a world with some terrorism that can be dealt with through education, improved foreign policies and opportunities for all than a dystopian world with no private conversations.
As for your justification for taxes on private income, it's the same argument that mass surveillance advocates make for prohibiting encryption that doesn't let the state see private communications. You've both accepted the right of the state to limit people's privacy. You're just bargaining over when the ends justify the means.
In the US it would be, since one is Constitutionally protected and the other isn't. That doesn't mean we can let our guard down, of course.
And our First Amendment and Fourth Amendment are no help to the Australian people at all, sadly. They will have to stand up for themselves on this one, and I hope they do.
I don't know. I'm just asking.
It's hard to hide everything from the likes of the IRS.
You essentially just described VAT.
For example, VAT as applied to securities transactions is basically just another name for capital gains tax.
VAT isn't traditionally applied to the purchase of labor, but that doesn't make much difference because only expenses where VAT was collected on purchase should be deductible when it's collected on sale, so it just means the same tax is paid on the other side when the products of the labor are sold.
Of course, there's no way you can tell from the outside since it looks like an ordinary https connection to an ordinary server. Then again, I can think of more ways to implement end-to-end encryption over wiretapped channels without it being obvious that encrypted data is being exchanged (stego is quite easy to make but very hard to detect if you don't know the method). So the whole ban is pointless.
Terrorists and other criminals have an interest in arranging this, and it's quite easy, so they'll succeed. The general public will not care enough, and any widely used end-to-end solution will be banned anyway, so they'll just have to give up a little bit of privacy. No gains but at least the government is trying, right?
The communication between both clients (my computer and the server) are encrypted locally such that mitm are not able to read our secure communication. The "end" of the connection is either the server or my laptop.
> The server you'd be talking to in my case is physically mine, in my home, so if I'm an endpoint and someone else is an endpoint, and they have an encrypted connection to the server, for all intents and purposes, it's end to end encrypted.
There are two people who can read the communications: me and whoever I'm talking to.
But rather, my point was this:
> Terrorists and other criminals have an interest in arranging this, and it's quite easy
Setting up https is easy, and steganography is easy to do. Thus, a ban would be pointless because everyone who needs it for criminal activities, still can do it. It's everyone else that's put at a disadvantage.
Do you have another source?
No one ever said it was people. We're talking about communication between two nodes that is simply facilitated by intermediary nodes. Your own source supports the argument, I think you should reread it.
Node 2 would be the server.
Intermediary nodes would be the various routers, switches, and other networking devices that inspects the traffic between the two nodes.
so my own source supports my question. nodes do not need to be "humans"
Sorry, but you're just wrong. I am not playing the devil's advocate, nor am I changing the definition.
The scenario you presented, client <-> server, has nothing to do with wisty's original statement,
"As I understand it, it means banning end to end communication between clients. So you can chat over https, but only if the server in the middle (which can be served warrants) is doing the encryption."
which is client <-> server <-> client, and is completely irrelevant. You are changing the definition to client <-> server. Think about it.