"normal" changes over time: a hundred years ago it wasn't normal to talk with literally all of your friends and family remotely all the time, nowadays it is.
Countries signatories of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights should respect Article 12:
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
> No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his ... correspondence
Still, nobody was ever shocked that a judge could order letters to be open or telephones to be tapped. And yet, as soon as someone asks whether we should consider something similar for electronic encryption, HN reacts as if this was something never heard of, nor imaginable.
Whether for one person or for everybody, eavesdropping requires encryption to be breakable. We must accept that serious discussion on this issue is not yet closed, and we must accept that one possible outcome is that encryption be banned.
Treating a recent advancement in computing technology as the most natural of the things is not good advocacy of an issue.
I'm not sure you read any of my comments, apart the one you replied to.
My only point is that discussions concerning the use of encryption must be accepted, because there is nothing inherently evil or unnatural in them. Don't let's get shocked any time someone proposes something that goes against some folks' credo, and let's debate the proposal in a constructive manner.
Countries signatories of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights should respect Article 12:
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.