> 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"
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.