“But what about our encryption rights?”

 

When the evil of violent monopolies, called governments, is pointed out, people usually respond with things such as: “but what about human rights?”. As if it wasn’t enough that today even the cat requests his own rights, now a UN report says freedom of expression depends on the use of encryption. How interesting… I bet cryptography and the internet are glad that international law is coming to the rescue. Our dear hash functions must be rejoicing in the news that they won’t be inverted by government decree…

Let’s see. Since when has freedom of expression been an issue in secret communications? It’s an issue in public, open communications. Do people really worry that they cannot “freely” express stuff that is impossible to decipher, or that they can safely say in the privacy of their home? Of course not. This is just a quarrel between politicians and geeks turned politicians that does not concern freedom – let alone rational sense – in the slightest, but the complete opposite.

Provided the right cryptographic functions are used, if anything can be decrypted is because the NSA, and the UN, and all these “human rights” chimpanzees are already violating their very precious “human rights” they want to sell you by hacking into our hardware even before it’s delivered, installing back doors and stealing the encryption keys… not because they have any special computational powers. They are just the usual hypocrites, who come to save us after pushing us into the river, and to give us what belongs to us while reserving themselves the right to steal it again. But the worst thing is of course that people still believe them and run to them for protection screaming “human rights!!”. Just what would they do without cryptography themselves and the ability to hide what lying assholes they are and their associations with others of their ilk.

Who exactly needs more protection for confidentiality? Is it the people who exchange goods and services, send each other wealth, chat to their friends and watch porn on the internet? Or is it the bunch of counterfeiting mafia gangs that sell the unborn to finance their armies and world-domination endeavours as well as the parliaments they create to resolve their inevitable conflicts thereof (yes, the UN)? Who is in greater need for cryptography and secrecy, a minority that wants to cooperate to create a form of money that will keep its value over time, or a majority that would vote any day to steal from their neighbour – or their children – through taxes, monetary monopoly and inflation?

If you cannot see the complete incoherence behind the rulers’ attempts at increasing the privacy of citizens – when their rule is precisely grounded on their ability to reduce your privacy almost to the point of rape, and as they themselves hide behind their bloody flags and coercive apparatus – it’s because you have a bit of that in you too. Secrecy is only needed as a principle by those who have something unethical to hide; secrecy in practice is needed because of there existing the former kind of people. What the UN just did for privacy is not what Facebook just did by allowing users to use strong encryption. So much for the endless criticism of Facebook by the paranoids of personal privacy – who are also Facebook users of course. The UN is a criminal organisation; Facebook is a service provider – though, admittedly, they too want to “make the world a better place”. There is no hiding from “good doers”.

Nobody really murders, steals and hacks because they believe themselves to be “bad”. Certainly, just as there’s no back door that only works for good guys, there is no government that attracts good people; no good guy actually threatens anyone with violence to install a back door in the first place, or to remove it. He who legitimises violence gets what he deserves. And just as he cannot guarantee there is no back door in the halls of democracy, he cannot guarantee there are no back doors in the software blessed by the “saviours” he praises.