Perhaps I'm being hard-headed here, but I don't understand the need to debate secure communications here, beyond the benefit of opening doubt in the minds of those ignorant of the underlying physical process.

This boils down to the fact (for me, and by proxy, my community) that I (and by proxy, my community) will not use insecure communication because someone or someones wants me to do so.

Shake your fist, rattle your sabres, put me in your sights, it will not change my (and by proxy, my community's) resolve.

And if I (and by proxy, my community) is to be prosecuted for using secure channels, then I (and by proxy, my community) will resort to steganography. Exact circumstances aside, there's no getting around the effects of a dedicated mind and an overwhelming power (of math) on my communications' transit.

The only means by which a paternal element can mediate the policies of my interactions would be to mediate the interface by which I (and by proxy, my community) communicate (in this case -- electronic/digital computer<->human), and enforce this with vigilant, and economically costly violence.

This matter-of-factness is similar to that in traffic stop interaction situation. I'm not happy that men with guns can systematically stop my transit, search my belongings, and steal my assets (at least in Texas), with ex post facto logic applied to the inherent justice, and I have no way of stopping this. The exact circumstances aside, there's no getting around the effects of a dedicated mind and an overwhelming power on my transit.

So I work around it, I try not to get stopped, and I deal with it when I do get stopped. I don't shake my fist or pout, beyond the benefit of opening doubt in the minds of those ignorant of the underlying physical process.