Do you really think criminals won't build private communication systems on their own anyway?
I'm less interested in the public eye and more interested in the private substance.
If I had the option, I'd rather do business with a machine instead of a person or business, if the protocol for doing business can be proven to not need trust. This appears possible only with machines.
It's possible for a messaging service to feature anonymity and privacy and prove the messaging protocol to be trustless.
Whether you want all messaging services to be public and run by known people or not is irrelevant. Anonymous, private messaging is possible, growing and possibly inevitable.
Choosing to have more power in your words with your good-name behind them is exactly this: a choice. Not an obligation.
If you're complicit to a crime, the method of communication being encrypted or not doesn't absolve you from the crime.
I'm less interested in the public eye and more interested in the private substance.
If I had the option, I'd rather do business with a machine instead of a person or business, if the protocol for doing business can be proven to not need trust. This appears possible only with machines.
It's possible for a messaging service to feature anonymity and privacy and prove the messaging protocol to be trustless.
Whether you want all messaging services to be public and run by known people or not is irrelevant. Anonymous, private messaging is possible, growing and possibly inevitable.
Choosing to have more power in your words with your good-name behind them is exactly this: a choice. Not an obligation.
If you're complicit to a crime, the method of communication being encrypted or not doesn't absolve you from the crime.