> Why would we listen to anyone for that matter? Ideally, because they present options that may work better than what we currently have. Privacy absolutism -- the position that there is *no* justification for infringing on individual privacy, even in the case of serious crimes -- doesn't offer anything better than what we currently have. In fact, many people would think it was a lot worse.
> until he talks"). In hindsight it was a bit ill-formatted to put it > between the methods I did agree with. I'm OK with technical attacks, I > am firmly against obligations to talk or pressuring people to talk with > torture, prison terms or fines. Okay, I can understand speaking glibly: thank you for clarifying you're opposed to that. But if you're okay with technical attacks, you're not a privacy absolutist, either. If your solution is targeted malware, remote exploits, Trojans, and the like, then you're permitting the government to do an awful lot to subvert privacy. _______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
