UK government has tried to ban encryption time and time again. This is what happens when you have old/incompetent career politicians in power instead of deep thinkers like scientists and engineers.
That doesn't work, either, because they tend to be rather dismissive of human concerns, and, at its heart, government is all about humans.
I don't have a solution, but I don't think that declaring that only one-or-another "class" of humans is fit to govern, is it.
It’s not perfect of course, but in my opinion it’s better than a fully democratic system.
It's probably more likely around the hyper rational types, but my boss is the most empathetic engineer I've ever worked for. This is anecdotal but your comment seems fairly clearly overbroad
That's the deal, though. Engineers and scientists don't have a monopoly on "deep thinker™".
My sister is a "deep thinker." She has an economics degree from Princeton, and has been working at very high levels, for decades.
Very decent human being. Not sure if she'd be interested in being a "leader," though.
That's part of the problem; it's almost as if wanting the job, automatically disqualifies you.
But you are right. It's an overbroad statement.
My personal favourite is "Death Stars", since it creates the mental image of some constable trying to confiscate a superlaser-equipped battlestation.
> the weapon sometimes known as a “shuriken”, “shaken” or “death star”, being a hard non-flexible plate having three or more sharp radiating points and designed to be thrown;
The argument is about proportional gain vs proportional loss and she is not aware of the devastating loss of privacy that would come from banning strong safe encryption.
Good unbiased Thinking requires effort. To optimize this there are caching mechanisms at multiple levels, from inside your brain to the societal level to save the energy required to do the thinking. If you deem that cache and all future ones to be invalid(untrustworthy) you'll have to do a lot of thinking from scratch.
If you want to practically brick such agent you'll just need to do a denial of service by bringing a huge deluge of claims that they have to spend more than their lifetime thinking through all of them critically.
Instead I'll just point out that difference in information is not difference in ability. She just wasn't aware encryption was used basically everywhere, and so could be forgiven for not having at hand the information to refute the assertion that some back doors in one algorithm or system is harmless.
Only an education in these subjects will help, or a widespread awareness campaign by educated folks. Or even a law protecting it as a fundamental right.
Just as I criticize her field all the time, and am quickly embarrassed by my presumption of hyper rational super powers. Or at least I was for years.. I'm getting better.