When Paul Graham has instruments of state power and coercion at his disposal then the use of encrypted and undisclosed will be relevant. I do not wish for the state to have access to this information. It being located in an undisclosed location and being encrypted suggests to me that should the government be ordered by a court to reveal the extent of this information it will be hard to determine if full disclosure has occurred. The use of these words my be needlessly alarmist but I don't see evidence of this. The government ought not be engaging in this and it is worthwhile to be alarmed and to try to get others to be alarmed.
So you would prefer surveillance data (and let it be clear, security is not possible without at least some surveillance being conducted on secured facilities, for example - even a store like 7-11 has video surveillance systems nowdays) be transmitted in the clear, stored accessibly to any malicious intruder in a well-known location without any physical security to speak of?
