The author is confusing visitors with customers. Refusing entry to 2% visitors? No, no! Forgetting about non-interesting 2% visitors? Not even a blink!
> This issue here isn't surveillance as per a signed warrant. I don't think anybody's really arguing against that.
Everybody who talks about cryptography is arguing about that! With the digital technology we have, the options are very simple: either every man in the middle can read (even the villain), or nobody can (not even the justice departments). There's no middle ground.
You see, when someone talks about "the governments" without realising that they do represent the people in a democracy, their ignorance show so much that it is difficult for them to attract any sympathy in those places where the laws are discussed.
I am always surprised that people get shocked when online privacy is put at risk, as if it was a fundamental human right.
REMOTE PRIVACY NEVER EXISTED BEFORE A FEW DECADES AGO!
And what happened in these decades are enough for the societies to wonder whether this new possibility in human connections (i.e. remote privacy) is globally a good thing. Just stomping your feet because the new toy may be declared illegal is not helping anyone. Governments are expressing serious doubts: this discussion needs serious interventions, not temper tantrums.
Say what you want, but a law that lets you pretend that the value of a building is based on what you ask, rather than what you can actually obtain, is a stupid law.
All the comments I've been able to read are missing the elephant in the room: no high-quality entropy source can turn a "should" into a "must".
If you want something that is difficult to guess, ask the cryptography guys. But if you need something that is -_guaranteed_ unique, you must build it yourself.