Originally, you'd communicate by mail, but some people didn't write things out in plain language; they used coated messages.

That was why the government decided to ban mail, and since that didn't cover all cases, they also banned people handing things to each other.

At least, I think that is how I remember it going in an alternate world where physical laws mimiced electronic laws.

If you were sane, you would realise that restricting the right of billions of people to communicate privately, a right they have enjoyed for all the thousands of years of human history, is handing terrorists a complete and total victory far beyond any act of violence they could commit. The purpose of a government is not to prevent 100% of all crime and terrorism by locking every citizen in a straitjacket.

This also isn't even motivated by terrorists, but rather people daring to oppose the government.

What terrorist is rooting for a government to eliminate private communication? For one, it makes their activities harder to carry out.

It inflicts terror, doesn't it?

If you make the government do your terror for you, you win. Like the TSA after 9/11.

What if the two groups are the same?

I believe that most of terrorism does happen because the people behind it have some goals, not for funsies; so trying to fight the causes would be one thing to do. Obviously, that's difficult for many reasons, and making life more shit for everyone else is cheap and easy, and hence preferred.

But if the cause is "death to the West" or "from the river to the sea" or "India should not be secular" then it's a bit of a problem. How do you fight the cause?

Provide a better alternative that satisfies the material grievances underlying the ideology

I don't think it's everyone's job to do that, though. If an ideology is innately, for the last 1300 years, expansive, by military might or by population demographic change, you can't blame past grievances for that. It's just innate.

When you say expansive ideologies within the last 1300 years, did you mean religiously-motivated American colonial settlement, genocide and expansion under manifest destiny? Or did you mean religiously-motivated Israeli colonial settlement, genocide and expansion under Zionist doctrine?

I just want to make sure I understand which expansive ideology we're calling innate, because again I know you are not claiming that a sovereign nation's desire to rid itself of foreign colonial oppression and apartheid is "expansive".

I didn't say "within the last 1300 years".

Your only response is that I said "within" instead of "for"?

You initiated discussion on a very serious subject. If you don't have the spine or ability to back up what you're saying and critically engage with responses, do yourself a favor and keep the cookie-cutter zealotry to yourself.

Neither of your examples were for the last 1300 years, so all your paragraphs are irrelevant.

I directly asked you to stop being evasive and to specifically name the ideologies you're speaking about.

We can't even trace "death to the west" or "from the river to the sea" as ideologies or even phrases beyond 100 years ago. so I'm flabbergasted you would try to claim such ideologies have been occurring for 1300 years, and then turn around and try to get pedantic about whether the word is "for" or "within".

Either way, you're just displaying your deep cultural ignorance. There's no more reason to spend time on this conversation.

The ideology is militant Islam. Which has been for 1300 years or so.

Not all of Islam, particularly as it rules places it doesn't need to be so militant (although it can turn to something at least as bad as a governing ideology), and also when Islam is a minority religion the majority of its adherents seem as normal as anyone else, but the militant aspect has been consistent over the centuries.

900 years ago, Christians were crusading across Europe and slaughtering tens of thousands in religiously motivated militant action.

Furthermore, Christian European colonization of the Arab world is what led to any modern notion of resentment against Europe or the West. Prior to this, Muslim militant action was no different than all of the religiously-motivated conflicts of the rest of the world; nearly all conflict involved or invoked religion, and conflict at the time was dominated by large, oppressive empires; everyone was fighting.

Your world view is poisoned by centuries of this conflict and by the West's own perceived divine authority. US Generals were calling the war in Iran "God's divine plan". So your attempts to paint this ideology as belonging to Muslims, and to equate several distinct cultural issues as one, only belies the extreme level of ignorance in which you're operating.

And there are around ~2bil followers of both Christianity and Islam. Islam is not a "minority religion". Did you get your facts from the back of a Fox News-sponsored cereal box?

I love how you lumped “I’d like my literal children not to be killed because they might grow up to be ‘terrorists’” in with “death to secular society”

Which one is that?

What poor taste, to attempt to equate terrorism to Palestinian liberation from colonial oppression, apartheid and genocide. You should be ashamed for making such a comment.

Yes, exactly that. Tons of crime is committed using only in-person communication. Should we all have microphones in our homes? Do detective work, flip sources, follow the money.

We do though? They're called Alexa, and LG TVs.

Remember, the terms of service for your LG TV say you have to warn visitors to you house they're being eavesdropped.

So there was no terrorism or crime or trafficking or money laundering prior to encrypted comms?

> Honestly no idea what I’d do if I were in government.

Spending crazy amounts in public education, healthcare, and nuclear arsenal?

Become a society where nobody feels it necessary to fall back on "terrorism" to get themselves properly heard.

Yeah, I don't think the terrorism in India is from lack of being heard.

It is generally extremist arms interested in destabilizing India to strengthen other regional powers (usually Pakistan).

The goal of much of these terrorist attacks simply end with ... no India, not "we demand change to policies in a reasonable way"

"hey pakistani spies if you bring us Pakistan's plans we'll give you a hundred thousand bucks"

My read[0] suggests it's a combination of religious, political, ethnic and economic issues, which are all inherently social things. From the causes of the splintering into 2 countries to what's happening today. And social issues crop up when the needs of some group in a society aren't being met, because they aren't being properly heard. I've seen things in the news about Modi; he doesn't sound like the type to listen to/heed anyone not in his circle.

[0] https://www.visionofhumanity.org/terrorism-counterterrorism-...

> Honestly no idea what I’d do if I were in government.

It's not ordinary citizens' job to figure out solutions to these problems. Government has teams of intelligence agencies to answer these questions. Encrypted chat is fundamental infra that shouldn't be blocked.

It did. The answer it came to? Make encryption illegal.

Most governments today are corrupt and the actions or inactions of the government cannot be used to draw general conclusions about the necessity of and right to private communication as a check and balance against tyrannical governments.

They need to adapt then. Plenty of encryption users have been busted. Whether by grabbing their device while it's unlocked or by turning a prison sentence into house arrest if they snitch on their peers.