It would help law enforcement track criminals such as terrorists and those who orchestrate scams such as ransomware. If they couldn't communicate with unbreakable encryption, it would be much easier to bring these criminals to justice and it would keep all of us safer.
Yes but please be aware of the fact that so far there have been no cases where weak encryption would help, or strong encryption would hinder the terrorists. And in Paris, they apparently communicated through unencrypted SMS messages.
Backdoors could also be used to unencrypt data that criminals encrypted with ransomware, allowing victims to recover their data without paying exorbitant prices to criminals.
Unfortunately this would also allow criminal to unencrypt data that banks encrypted for their customers, or sensitive personal data that companies or government organizations are storing about people.
Imagine how bad things would get if terrorists or hostile governments got hold of the backdoor access. How about companies installing backdoors for THEIR governments or just for their own corporation? How about if anyone in law enforcement decides to misuse the backdoors to find dirt on a political opponent? And finally - there is no way to stop unbreakable encryption, as long as one-time coding pads exist; so in each case, determined terrorists are not going to be hurt by this.
So yes, there may be some reasons in favour, but I feel like more are against.
One interesting thing is how the information got into the DNA - was it somehow "collected" from the system over the generations (i.e. it was always present in the system since the Big Bang?) or is information somehow "generated" over time (which is strange, because the process that creates it would probably contain the information in its definition)...
In other words, the questions are definitely interesting, and I think sometimes it is not a bad idea to realize that if you see a nail and have a hammer, you might apply the latter to the former
To make this more scientific (because without observable behaviour, how can you tell if what someone has in their head is faith or agnosticism + hypotheses): to what extent do people base their actions on their hypothesis/faith?
I have faith that once I finish typing this it will appear on the Slashdot website (do I know or hypothesize?). I have a hypothesis that there is an optical link that will transfer the request to Slashdot servers (or do I know this although I have not seen the cable, and if I have seen the cable it was not today?). I know the stairs outside my office will carry me (or is this just a hypothesis based on previous experience)? I hypothesize that the computer I am typing this on actually uses some electricity as I type (or do I really and for sure know this?).
Of course in religion these become more complicated, and I am willing to admit that I don't know if there is life after death but I act as if there is (or I act as if there is not). It does not even matter what I believe, it's how I act - some people say they believe in life after death but act as if that was not true, others say they are agnostics but act as if there was no life after death, without a provision that it may be untrue (if there's some probability of getting to hell shouldn't I go for a more careful approach if I really don't know, or do I have actual faith that there is nothing after death?).
So, thanks again for the post, and I can only hypothesize that it will be useful.
"I may kid around about drugs, but really, I take them seriously." - Doctor Graper