quazar

This cleans up Nim's syntax a little, we use it in production with not much maintenance.

The OP seemed to suggest that when you ban encryption, random people will randomly get in trouble, therefore banning encryption is a bad idea. But judges have common sense and law enforcement has limited resources (prioritization) therefore random people will probably not randomly get in trouble. Therefore strong encryption ban is very realistic and very easy to sell to the population, and not like the OP claimed something that will backfire. This is why his comment is naive. He likes encryption and doesn't want for it to be banned therefore he deludes himself with some alternative reality where doing something he doesn't like backfires and is reversed.

Strong encryption ban will not backfire.

Even if all of this did not incriminate you, you're in trouble for something in the first place, since you're on trial, right? So probably other people you communicated with lead them to you. And in this case, the judge applies common sense, there is this traffic cell of 6 people and on 5 computers we have clear evidence but on 6th nothing, therefore you're still probably 95+% guilty? Judges aren't stupid.

People making comments like yours annoy me since you seem to be calming people down that we could endure total strong encryption ban, while we absolutely could not.