story
Now consider the cost of such 'solution'. Free speech gets redefined, most of the people get divided into informants,opportunists, naive state suckers and silent fragmented opposition. Is that kind of security and police state an acceptable cost? For preventing small number of violent deaths each year?
There are much bigger problems in Western societies than a bunch of lunatics killing small number of people, but those can't be used so easily to make a power grab.
So humans have to do it till then. We were maybe born too early. But I think it makes things interesting.
That means there are still problems for you and me to solve.
Assuming these experts are perfect and infallible (a bad assumption), then what does it prove?
That only an authorized government agent can have access?
Can you not think of any problem with that whatsoever?
I said the monitoring software having access to the data was a solution. But you're probably thinking of a case where there is a master encryption key which we just hand to the government. But have you thought of a solution where we can be sure of the access that the software will have?
Something like a infallible way we can choose only the software can view the data. Sure, you're quick to dismiss it because it doesn't exist. That's why I said it didn't exist
There needn't be centralized way of communication you're thinking of now. It can be public software that people can choose to run.
> Assuming these experts are perfect and infallible
Well, you can have the same skepticism for the end-to-end encrypted software you use. How can you assume that it isn't broken?
