Good read, if a bit lengthy for so little content. But it's an interview transcript. Nevertheless, Whittaker makes some good points. I do find it odd that privacy invasion is always justified by those in power under the rubric of protecting children. Yet, time and time again we can see that their true aim is always more authoritarian overreach. At least we are seeing less claims of "fighting the war on terror" mostly, I believe, thanks to Snowden blowing that myth out of the water.

I for one will be continuing to use end-to-end encryption whenever possible. I've used Signal for years and have dragged many a friend onto the platform. Unfortunately, one of the downsides, Signal up until recently was able to be used as a complete replacement for your SMS app, utilizing E2E encryption for Signal users. This meant I could just convince my friends to change messaging apps. It was so simple my mother could do it. Now however, Signal is no longer routing standard SMS messages, which means you must have Signal for Signal users and another app for SMS. This is often too much a barrier for the less tech savvy. At least RCS between 2 individuals is ostensibly E2E encrypted.

We’ve already seen Jessica Burgess, who was a mother in Nebraska, who was charged with a felony for helping her daughter access reproductive care after the state suddenly banned reproductive care.

That's such a terrible example. She was 7 months pregnant! That's illegal to abort in every state unless the baby is found to have some horrible disease. There was no sudden ban of that. I'm pro choice, but not pro killing an unborn baby that's developed enough to live outside the womb.

In addition, the mother and daughter told authorities they had messaged about it before the state sent a subpoena to Facebook. It had nothing to do with surveillance. Bringing up this case as an argument for encrypted messaging will only make enemies of you. What the heck was she thinking? Did she not know the details of the case at all?