There's a standard that appears in the surveillance debate.
"X is OK because no would be dumb/provocative/bold enough to do Y".
But that arguments doesn't take into account that make X standard means that Y is no longer the stretch it would otherwise be.
And in practical terms, the state indeed would have a hard time if they had to stop each individual using SSL for various logins. But it would be simple matter to either prohibit SSL for various things or to demand the right/ability to snoop on every SSL connection (in fact, it sound like this is more or less what's being planned now - but of course, "no one would be so dumb as to do it" so we have nothing to worry about).
"X is OK because no would be dumb/provocative/bold enough to do Y".
But that arguments doesn't take into account that make X standard means that Y is no longer the stretch it would otherwise be.
And in practical terms, the state indeed would have a hard time if they had to stop each individual using SSL for various logins. But it would be simple matter to either prohibit SSL for various things or to demand the right/ability to snoop on every SSL connection (in fact, it sound like this is more or less what's being planned now - but of course, "no one would be so dumb as to do it" so we have nothing to worry about).