UK Home Secretary Amber Rudd is upset. She considers it “unacceptable” that she can’t read your private chat messages and wants that fixed.  Naturally, she publicly ties her demand that you surrender your privacy to  the fight against terrorism.  Fortunately, Rudd won’t get her way. That’s not because her demand is evil and wrong-headed, although it is. It’s because her demand is impossible to implement.

British police and intelligence agencies want to read WhatsApp messages sent and received by Khalid Masood, who killed four and injured 50 on March 22 in London before being shot dead himself. They can’t access those messages because WhatsApp uses “end to end encryption.”

What this means is that WhatsApp messages are encrypted at the sender’s end and decrypted at the receiver’s end. The company itself never has access to the plain text of messages and therefore cannot turn that information over to police.

Rudd would like to see “back doors” built into applications so that governments can access messages’ plain text under “carefully thought-through, legally covered arrangements.” That’s a pipe dream, for two reasons.

First, such a “back door” would destroy both the security of, and the user base for, any app whose creator allowed it. If one government can get in through a back door, so can other governments, and so can non-government hackers. No one who cares about messaging security and privacy (including, but obviously in no way limited to, terrorists) will use such an app.

Secondly, there are, and always will be, secure “end to end encryption” alternatives to apps whose makers allow them to be legally crippled as Rudd would like. That genie escaped the bottle in 1991 when Phil Zimmerman released the first version of “Pretty Good Privacy,” a strong encryption program that anyone can install and learn to use on, these days, almost any device (using the OpenPGP standard).

Governments’ war on strong encryption has been over for more than two decades. Strong encryption, and the public, won.

That doesn’t mean your encrypted messages are secure, though. As WikiLeaks’s “Vault 7” release of CIA documents shows, the world’s intelligence agencies have shifted focus from hobbling encryption to compromising our devices and the operating systems that run on them.  That way they can read our messages before we encrypt them or after we decrypt them.

Remember: It’s not Amber Rudd and us versus the terrorists. It’s Amber Rudd and the terrorists versus us.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION  HISTORY

• “Rudd Re-Declares Governments’ Lost War on Strong Encryption,” by Thomas L. Knapp, OpEdNews, 03/27/17
• “Rudd re-declares governments’ lost war on strong encryption,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Pahrump Valley, Nevada Times, 03/29/17
• “Rudd Re-Declares Governments’ Lost War on Strong Encryption,” Key West: The Newspaper [Florida], 03/31/17

In the latest round of saber-rattling between the US and North Korean governments, US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson laid down the well-worn line. “All options,” he said during a visit to South Korea, “are on the table.”

If he’s serious, here’s an option that never seems to get much discussion lately:

US president Donald Trump should send Tillerson to tell Yun Byung-se, his counterpart in Seoul, that the US is withdrawing its troops from the Korean peninsula by a specific date, and that after that date the US will cease to guarantee, or accept responsibility for, the South’s security.

If the Korean War was a person, it would be old enough to collect Social Security benefits. It began on  June 25, 1950 when the armed forces of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (“North Korea”) invaded the Republic of Korea (“South Korea”).

Coming up on 67 years later, it continues. The two Korean regimes still consider themselves at war, the US government still keeps nearly 30,000 US troops deployed along the ironically named “Demilitarized Zone” separating the two countries, and the situation remains as tense and sporadically violent as ever since 1953 when a temporary ceasefire was signed.

Today, South Korea is twice as populous and 35 times as wealthy (in terms of Gross Domestic Product) as the North, boasting the 11th largest economy in the world (North Korea ranks 113th).

In what universe does it make sense for American taxpayers to continue picking up a substantial portion of the check for South Korea’s defense from its smaller, poorer, less industrially advanced neighbor?

Once upon a time, at least briefly, this was a Republican talking point. In 2004, president George W. Bush announced his intent to withdraw thousands of US troops from South Korea over several years.

He did so in a campaign speech in New Mexico — a state he lost in 2000 by fewer votes than Libertarian Harry Browne received, during a visit intended to prevent a similar performance by 2004 Libertarian candidate Michael Badnarik. For an ever so brief moment, Bush faked a peacenik end run around both Badnarik and Democratic candidate John Kerry on the subject of North and South Korea.

Of course, it was back to business as usual, and to North Korea as all-purpose bogeyman, once Bush managed to get re-elected that November. But at least he was willing to broach the subject. Trump and Tillerson should do likewise — and then follow through.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION  HISTORY

• “It’s Time To End America’s Longest War,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Antiwar.com, 03/22/17
• “It’s Time to End America’s Longest War,” by Thomas L. Knapp, OpEdNews, 03/22/17
• “It’s Time to End America’s Longest War,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Santiago, Chile Times, 03/22/17
• “It’s Time to End America’s Longest War,” by Thomas L. Knapp, CounterPunch, 03/23/17
• “It’s Time to End America’s Longest War,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Key West: The Newspaper, 03/24/17
• “It’s Time to End America’s Longest War,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Ventura County, California Citizens Journal, 03/25/17
• “Time to end America’s longest war,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Bucks County, Pennsylvania Courier Times, 03/27/17
• “It’s time to end America’s longest war,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Newberry, South Carolina Observer, 03/29/17
• “It’s time to end America’s longest war,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Sonoran News [Arizona], 04/04/17

Writing at Quartz, Tim Fernholz notes that early space tourists “won’t benefit from the tight regulation we’ve come to expect in everything from air transport to private automobiles.” Although the Federal Aviation Administration enjoys approval authority over launches, the Commercial Space Act limits government interference in post-launch space flight.

That’s a good thing, for three reasons.

The first reason is that the United States is neither the only country in the world nor the only country capable of hosting launch facilities. If Blue Origin, SpaceX, Virgin Galactic and other companies can’t do the things they aim to do in America, they’ll do those things elsewhere, in countries where governments are happy to mind their own business in exchange for an economic boost and more tax revenues.

The second reason is that government regulation tends toward a “one size fits all” approach that stifles innovation, including innovation in safety.  Once a regulatory requirement has been established, the incentive for business is to concentrate on meeting the requirement rather than on developing even better systems that make it irrelevant and hope they can get the rule changed.

The third and final reason is that for space tourists, risk is part of the package. Space travel is dangerous. It will remain dangerous for the foreseeable future. Those considering paying big money to be flung into space know the risks and are okay with them.

To date, 18 US astronauts and Russian cosmonauts have been killed in space flight while a number of astronauts and workers have been killed in non-flight accidents.

As we revisit the moon, then turn our attention to more distant destinations, more will die.  Mars is 46.8 million miles away at its closest point to Earth, with no tow trucks nearby should anything break down, and a not especially hospitable environment at the other end.

Space is the final frontier and frontier life is dangerous. Just ask those who explored Earth’s seas or settled the American west.  Despite the dangers, they did those things. Just as, if one of the private space companies asks for volunteers to man an experimental crew capsule tomorrow, the next day they’ll find a line of eager applicants several miles long outside their door vying for the privilege of getting strapped to a 30-story tube full of explosive fuel and hurled into the heavens. I might be in that line myself.

These companies don’t want their passengers and crew members dead. That would be bad for business. They’re going to do their best to minimize the risks — and they’re going to have no trouble at all finding willing volunteers to face those risks. Government can’t eliminate the risks and shouldn’t get in the way trying to.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION  HISTORY

• “Risk, Reward, Regulation and Space Tourism,” by Thomas L. Knapp, OpEdNews, 03/20/17
• “Risk, reward, regulation and space tourism,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Pahrump Valley, Nevada Times, 03/22/17
• “Risk, Reward, Regulation and Space Tourism,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Ventura County, California Citizens Journal, 03/22/17
• “Risk, Reward, Regulation and Space Tourism,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Queens, New York Ledger [web and print editions], 03/28/17
• “Risk, Reward, Regulation and Space Tourism,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Forest Hills/Rego Park, New York Times [web and print editions], 03/28/17
• “Risk, Reward, Regulation and Space Tourism,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Brooklyn, New York Downtown Star [web and print editions] 03/28/17
• “Risk, Reward, Regulation and Space Tourism,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Long Island/Astoria New York Journal [web and print editions] 03/28/17
• “Risk, Reward, Regulation and Space Tourism,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Queens, New York Leader/Observer [web and print editions] 03/28/17
• “Risk, Reward, Regulation and Space Tourism,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Queens, New York Examiner [web and print editions] 03/28/17
• “Risk, Reward, Regulation and Space Tourism,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Glendale, New York Register [web and print editions] 03/28/17
• “Risk, Reward, Regulation and Space Tourism,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Greenpoint, New York Star [web and print editions] 03/28/17
• “Risk, reward, regulation & space tourism,” by Thomas L. Knapp, McAllen, Texas Monitor, 04/09/17
• “Considering risk, reward, regulation and space tourism,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Fayette, West Virginia Tribune, 04/10/17
• “Considering the risk, reward, regulation and space tourism,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Montgomery, West Virginia Herald, 04/14/17