Wired Magazine, http://www.wired.com/2016/02/encrypt-act-2016/
Brian Barrett, “New Bill Aims to Stop State-Level Decryption Before It Starts”, 10 February 2016:

If ENCRYPT does pass, it will alleviate concerns over the logistical nightmare that state-sponsored anti-encryption laws would create.

Mr. Barrett means, “State anti-encryption laws”.  He’s talking about laws adopted by States, not sponsored by them (which would imply that they were proposed by States for adoption by some other authority, such as the federal Congress).  The excessively common expression, “state-sponsored terrorism”, has leaked, in Mr. Barrett’s consciousness, and is sticking to the concept, state.

It’s a bit ironic, by the way, that “state-sponsored terrorism” should have become such a popular phrase.  (Just search the Web for the phrase “state-sponsored”, and you’ll see just how popular.)  Terrorism has always been a tool of statecraft.  In its modern form, it was invented by the state—specifically, the French state—and it remains a favorite resource of states for keeping the rabble in line.  One might almost as well talk about “state-sponsored taxation”, or “state-sponsored diplomacy”, except that, of course, there is also quite a bit of non-state-sponsored terrorism about these days.

And a quibble:

This post has been slightly edited to clarify comments from Andrew Crocker

We all use to edit this way, but let’s reflect:  to edit means to prepare for publication.  Ultimately (through mysterious channels) the word derives from Latin editus, past participle of edo ,“to give out, put forth, bring forth”.  I’m quite willing to believe that any publication these days has been “slightly edited”, if, indeed, it’s been edited at all; but I think the word our editor wants here is revised.

 

Advertisements