I'm not sure I understand your point. Without encryption, legal and political constructs protecting privacy are nigh unenforceable.
Similarly, most records of importance to my heirs or a court case aren't solely held by me. Purchases are recorded by at least myself and the vendor, potentially with an intermediary like my CC or bank.
My tax records are retained by both myself and the IRS. In the case of a gov't case against me, they have those records. In the case of heirs needing access, they can petition the government if I failed to provide other access for some reason.
The malware example, this already happens. It can happen with or without cryptography being legal or pervasive.
> How do we reconcile wanting data to be available (free) with also wanting everything encrypted for posteriority --do we just forgo that treasure trove of data?
Who wants everything encrypted? I cannot think of a single person that's not at a very extreme ideological position that would argue for that.
Similarly, most records of importance to my heirs or a court case aren't solely held by me. Purchases are recorded by at least myself and the vendor, potentially with an intermediary like my CC or bank.
My tax records are retained by both myself and the IRS. In the case of a gov't case against me, they have those records. In the case of heirs needing access, they can petition the government if I failed to provide other access for some reason.
The malware example, this already happens. It can happen with or without cryptography being legal or pervasive.
> How do we reconcile wanting data to be available (free) with also wanting everything encrypted for posteriority --do we just forgo that treasure trove of data?
Who wants everything encrypted? I cannot think of a single person that's not at a very extreme ideological position that would argue for that.