<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div class="">Additionally:</div><div class=""><br class=""></div>On Apr 30, 2016, at 1:20 AM, Paul Wilkins <<a href="mailto:paulwilkins369@gmail.com" class="">paulwilkins369@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""> the privacy arguments no longer
wash, and the technology arguments that applied 10 years ago have
been outpaced by Moore's Law. </blockquote><br class=""></div><div>Whether or not “privacy arguments no longer wash” is a question of considerable political controversy, and endless complexity.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>The fact that reasonable minds can (and do) differ means that midway imposition of a <i class="">fait accomplis </i>end to the argument simply on a politician’s say-so is a usurpation of the democratic process we’re supposed to use to resolve questions like that.</div><br class=""><div class="">Western democracies have a long tradition of preservation of the status quo until consensus has been built: That’s supposed to be a very conservative position, it’s the way matters of large public controversy have always been settled.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Those pushing for increased monitoring and control over the Internet attempt to bypass that: Even though our body-politic hasn’t finished the debate, they want to impose a “solution” that matches the way they want the debate to end.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">In that environment, “TLS everywhere” sounds like a pretty good principle, in that it puts permission for monitoring and control more in the hands of the users.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""> - mark</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div></body></html>