My point was that if you argue for "strong" privacy", i.e. that the government should not have the ability to view the data of citizens under any circumstances (e.g. the person is a proven terrorist and the information in their phone may help prevent further loss of life) you must also allow that it is not morally wrong to use "offshore" techniques to prevent the government examining someone's finances.
And I never said the government shouldn't ever see the "data of citizens". Just not all types of data and especially not in an Orwellian fashion: all data, all the time. Also, one must accept that for any given crime, there will always be cases that can never be apprehended at all.
In the current case, apparently most of the deals have been technically legal. If they were illegal, yes, they would have gone unnoticed for long, but when a leak like this happens, then criminal investigation and prosecution could begin immediately. Instead, we have this mess where the deeds are considers morally wrong but not against the law.
Now regarding the broader topic of encryption and privacy, consider this thought experiment: imagine if there were technology to read people's brains. Something like a scanner you walk through and the device could know anything you are have been thinking about in the last 24 hours. Should a government, or anyone for that matter, ever be allowed to perform this procedure on someone against their will? Invade the most private area, one's own thoughts?
Now communication is just an extension of thought. Two people talk to each other so one thought can be transmitted to the other. Therefore if I see the private thoughts as a necessary sanctuary (which I absolutely do) that should never be breached against someone's will, I could extend this to any form of communication, i.e. transmission of thought, and private data, i.e. external memorization of thought.
Obviously I am in a minority with this opinion, and quite matter of factly the transmission and external of thought is not such a sanctuary by default. Hence encryption - a means to technologically ensure what we as a society have decided not to protect.
I am well aware of the ramifications if one were to follow this thought through to its very end: that private data should never be (legally) accessible to anyone but its owner (and ownership of data is also a difficult conundrum) would also mean the state would be forbidden from listening in on any communication, including of, say, known terrorists.
Well, here's the thing: it'll always be an arms race. Encryption and methods of information exchance usually improve slightly (i.e. years) ahead of the means to break the encryption. Heck, in lots of cases it is just a question of the effort (i.e. computing power * time) required to crack a scheme, and therefore better hardware allows easier breaking of encryption, but also stronger encryption that is even harder to break. Hence most surveillance (and post facto investigation) rely on man-in-the-middle, spoofing, open security holes, or even just social engineering (e.g. tricking someone into letting you in, detaining or even torturing* a suspect until they tell you their password), in other words: the very same methods that any illegal attack would utilize. Thus anything that lets the police in also lets the criminals in.
I am not sure if there is a solution to this. Maybe this arms race will just go on forever. But right now not giving in to any demand for backdoors etc. is just asking for the next wave of viruses, ransomware attacks to make use of etc.
*Here is a terrifying thought: beyond being simply cruel and inhumane, torture is usually regarded as ineffective. The tortured may end up telling you anything you want to hear just to make it stop, admitting to crimes they never comitted, listing accomplices for crimes that never happened. But if torture happens to retrieve a password, the torturer could immediately check the validity of the password and only stop once they have received the true password. Which means in this situation torture is an effective method to gain access, because the victim can never end it without giving the torturer what they desire.
)
