[alextgordon]

The average person isn't even aware that VLC is an illegal circumvention tool in the United States under the DMCA. I fail to see how restrictions on encryption software would have a different outcome. Encryption is built into so many products, it's part of daily life and most people don't even know they're using it.

[ptha]

I wasn't aware of this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VLC_media_player#Legality Harks back to people not being aware that making copies of CDs for private (fair) use is illegal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ripping#Legality

[studentrob]

> I fail to see how restrictions on encryption software would have a different outcome.

The enforcement of any law passed would of course be impossible.

The reason we fight it is the implications. While our government and people depend on access to such encrypted communications, our society won't be focused on the right kind of ways to keep each other safe.

So, we should educate each other on the facts and prepare each other for a future where more and more criminals will communicate in hidden ways. On balance, we will be better off with encryption, because there are more good things that come with it than bad. But the bad things are something we can either choose to prepare for, or pretend they do not exist. I choose to prepare.

[x1798DE]

While they can't actually get rid of encryption, they can definitely make it so that actual secure cryptography is not the default in the devices and sites that the majority of purple use. If Chrome, Amazon, Android and iPhone don't support strong encryption (at rest and/or in transit), then for almost all situations encryption will be weak.

This is particularly problematic when there are network effects (e.g. messaging, email, standards acceptance), because anything that becomes the standard is an immediate target.