Isn't a ban on encryption a ban on free speech?
It seems to me that encrypted communication is akin to two people having a conversation in Klingon. If a third party, a police officer, were to interrupt the conversation shouting, "Hey! Speak English! You must be understood!", then that would clearly be a violation of first amendment rights. I cannot imagine a judge would allow the police officer to use a defense of, "Well, they could have been planning terrorism." If the conversation is electronic, and the government does not know what is being said, then it still seems absurd to me for that to be illegal.
Banning encrypted communication is akin to banning all foreign languages, made-up languages, and baby talk. Speak English, little baby, you must be understood or the cops will get you! Absurd.
If the CNIL's proposed approach were to be embraced as the standard for Internet regulation, we would find ourselves in a race to the bottom. In the end, the Internet would only be as free as the world's least free place.
Correction: The Internet would only be as free as the intersection of all least free places. Anything that is forbidden anywhere would be forbidden everywhere.
poorest state is wealthier than the UK on a per capita basis
According to Wikipedia, the poorest state is Mississippi with a per capita GDP of $28,900. Depending on whose figures you use, the UK has a per capita GDP of between $37,000 and $39,000, which would rank the UK somewhere around #32 out of 50 states. Or were you not talking about GDP?
Here is an article from The Society Pages about dead people who won't vote:
Black people in the U.S. vote overwhelmingly Democratic. They also have, compared to Whites, much higher rates of infant mortality and lower life expectancy. Since dead people have lower rates of voting, that higher mortality rate might affect who gets elected. What would happen if Blacks and Whites had equal rates of staying alive?
These articles are interesting, but the conclusions are too simple: It is too simple to say that if things were different then people would act as if things were the same.
The site Sociological Images has data about the rate that cops kill and are killed in the USA. This article is a comparison between the use of guns in the USA vs the UK, but it does highlight the USA rates per civilian population per police population pretty well.
It isn't about making money, it is about a case load that they could not possibly handle if they had to take every one to court.
If there are more broken laws than there is money or capacity to adjudicate the cases of the alleged perpetrators... then maybe there are too many laws?
Why should justice hinge on the financial means of the alleged perpetrators or on court capacity? That scenario sounds ripe for the proliferation of injustice.
Break up solid rocks deep in the ground, suck out the oil, and then fill the hole with a water slurry. What could go wrong?
Imagine a world where there were multiple standards for cigarette lighter^W^W accessory power connectors, and how different the market for accessories would be. Im surprised that car manufacturers, whose product development cycle is quite lengthy, are willing to accomodate proprietary (and likely fleeting) technologies.
The universe seems neither benign nor hostile, merely indifferent. -- Sagan