Bringing encryption restrictions in through the back door [LWN.net]

Bringing encryption restrictions in through the back door

Posted Mar 19, 2020 18:49 UTC (Thu) by nix (subscriber, #2304)
In reply to: Bringing encryption restrictions in through the back door by zlynx
Parent article: Bringing encryption restrictions in through the back door

... except that it's not the people who are part of an organization who get the right to speak for it. It's the subset of those people who say what the rich people who run those organizations want them to say. It's money buying a (much) louder voice than everyone else, and thus gaining power, and thus corrupting the law. And that way lies oligarchy at best, plutocracy at worst.

to post comments

Bringing encryption restrictions in through the back door

Posted Mar 21, 2020 19:07 UTC (Sat) by marcH (subscriber, #57642) [Link] (2 responses)

Trying to restrict the rich from having the loudest voice is laudable but totally futile, it can never work. The only counter-measure is "freedom of information" = *who* is paying for this or that propaganda. That is of course under attack too but it's a much simpler and actually winnable fight.

Bringing encryption restrictions in through the back door

Posted Mar 24, 2020 8:47 UTC (Tue) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link]

"Never argue with a man who buys ink by the barrel"

Cheers,
Wol

Bringing encryption restrictions in through the back door

Posted Apr 9, 2020 0:15 UTC (Thu) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]

The only cures for inequality that have heretofore been known are warfare and plague, but that doesn't mean that warfare and plague are *good* things, or that it is not desirable to find other ways to reduce the power of the mighty. Of *course* it's worth trying to restrict the rich from having the loudest voice, just as it is desirable to restrict the rich and powerful from having absolute power of life and death over everyone.