Governments and intelligence agencies continue to fail at what they are saying they are doing when they try and strip the citizenry of further guaranteed rights – protecting us.  As these entities continue to fail, they have begun to reach out and blame and attack privacy and encryption for their failures, saying it’s encryption and too much personal freedom that is causing such horrific attacks like those seen in Beirut and Paris.

The unfortunate thing is that most of the people in the world actually believe this when a government or intelligence agency comes out and says these things. That tends to be because most people think governments and intelligence agencies care about looking out for them.

For years, police and intelligence agencies have badgered Congress and software manufacturers for the right to invade encrypted messages, according to TechCrunch. The lawyer for this particular law enforcement and intelligence community is named Robert Litt. In August Litt told his law enforcement and intelligence clients that he continues to expect a rather hostile legislative environment for allowing his clients to hack people’s phones with or without search warrants. However, he also said to them that things “could turn in the event of a terrorist attack or criminal event where strong encryption can be shown to have hindered law enforcement.”

And then Beirut and Paris happened.

Litt’s report was leaked, and was published in The Washington Post soon after. Immediately after the attacks in Paris, a former CIA chief said he believes that the Paris attacks are going to re-open the arguments between security and privacy . Police departments all over the country have long lobbied for the ability to hack into people’s phones whenever they feel like it.

To say nothing of the National Security Agency’s domestic phone tapping that was finally exposed by Edward Snowden. The challenge has always been that elusive “national security” phrase. What exactly does that even mean and who exactly gets to decide what that is? Certainly, it seems, not the average citizen.

Of course, the criminals of the world use encryption. But so do police and spies. But because regular people want to protect their privacy, they can’t because it might be a threat to someone’s “national security?” A former British spy recently told the media that as people became more used to the fact that the government spies on them, they resorted to using certain apps to encrypt their communications and protect their privacy. The spy also went on to say that terrorist organizations find these apps perfect for their us in world wide communication.

It seems as if the former spook is telling everyone that mass murderers can plan and coordinate horrific murders as a direct result of regular people not liking the government spying on them. Banning encryption or getting the government to give police and intelligence agencies free reign to hack phones will not stop terror organizations from communicating with one another.

They will find a way. History has proved that they always do. In the meantime, at least in America, the Bill of Rights gets thrown right into the bonfire. If it hasn’t been already.