• FartsWithAnAccent@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    21 hours ago

    No, you are wildly incorrect for multiple reasons both technical and practical.

    I’m not even going to waste any more of my time pointing out how intensely ridiculous your assertions are.

      • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        4 hours ago

        People used encryption for commercial purposes since Antiquity.

        If your point is how it mostly was right “before radio transmission” - that latency would break civilization. You’d have to send messengers with safes for correspondence. The contents of which would be encrypted.

        By the way, in those days nobody in their right mind would suggest banning encryption. If you need to read something - get a court order to read it first, if you read it without that you’ve committed a crime and it’s not admissible. If it’s encrypted, you could get the court to demand someone to decipher it, if it’s certain that they can.

        A lot of steps, see, to not infringe on private life.

      • FartsWithAnAccent@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        19
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        20 hours ago

        Please continue to highlight your spectacular ignorance so that everyone knows for sure that you should not be taken seriously.

          • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            3 hours ago

            That’s correct, but your point is not clear. Public infrastructure is not a closed system. If your “closed systems” have to communicate, they either build and support their own parallel infrastructure or don’t, or communicate without encryption over public infrastructure. Which is not acceptable.