No, I'm not. My point is that we (citizens) are not in charge of government. It's misleading to claim that we are.
It doesn't matter whether "the people" are for or against encryption. It's irrelevant for political decision making (unless popular opinion on encryption threatens to influence elections, which right now it doesn't and probably won't ever).
> it is to communicate this argument to people and also to be part of our own government.
"We" (as in the majority of citizens) can't be part of our government. "We" can't even significantly influence government at all other than through elections. Popular political influence through elections only works for very limited very broad subjects that happen to be in fashion by the time an election takes place. Subjects unlike relatively specific things such as encryption.
> we have the responsibility
With the above in mind I don't agree. At all. You could try to explain the point of the parent poster to 1000's of people and convince them to agree. This would be a tremendous task and would politically change: nothing. At all.
You could also try to convince them of the opposite. And this would also have 0 political effect.
Even if everybody on HN did it. Even if everyone on here had the exact same opinion, arguments and same amazing sales skills.
Personally at present I think representative democracy is working, but that people are very dishonest about what they really want.
This seems to me like an uncharitable interpretation of what he said. If one part of it "works", then saying it doesn't work at all is a false statement. The correct question is, to what degree does democracy "work", in 2019 - I believe the year is an important component of the question, because most people's conception of democracy is abstract theory, and disregards the increasing complexity of the world.
> In which case what is there to talk about here?
The degree to which democracy "works".
What do you mean by "works"? A violent dictatorship with a genocide here and there works perfectly fine, depending on your definition of "works".
> In which case what is there to talk about here?
Priorities. Should the priority be to discuss the importance of encryption. Or should the priority be to discuss the importance of means to influence decisions about encryption?
> You should be out attending to the business of revolution, not yakking on forums about incremental change right?
You mean literally losing a hand or an eye as a yellow vest? Or something like that? Nah. Meh, thanks. Not the best option I would say.
> Personally at present I think representative democracy is working,
Yeah. Again. I agree that it's "working". But without a definition of "working" or a benchmark that's an information-less statement.
> but that people are very dishonest about what they really want.
And you have hope that this will change?
People can't know what they want, if they aren't honestly informed about what's going on around them.
Tell that to the Hong Kong protesters.
We're talking people losing their hand(s), eye(s) or dying here.
Same for the Barcelona protests (non yellow vests).
You'll have to search quite a bit to find articles on those if you live in "the West", but yeah they do happen.
On topic: if only Macron and Winnie the Pooh could somehow circumvent the encryption of those pesky protesters...
Individual rights were never won or kept by lying down.
I'm more afraid of direct democracy than anything. I basically think I'll be dead within a few months of that emerging. Authoritarianism is my next greatest fear.
Any substantiation? My fear is the exact opposite (anything decided by "not us" is "not for us").
You are contradicting yourself. Effectively you're saying unless a majority of people agree with you then it is non-democratic. As parent poster said we have the responsibility: it is to communicate this argument to people and also to be part of our own government.