151–160 of 255 posts
Since this functionality is so widespread and popular, the onus of proof should be on people who want to forbid it.
Politicians propose to forbid all buildings from having doors. After all "bad people/stuff etc." could lock the doors and hide behind them. Anyone arguing against that is obviously against safety. Counterpoints: - Do we currently have a big door problem? - Wait, don't doors also serve an important function? - Won't that make everybody much more insecure and basically do nothing against "bad stuff"? - What if I put a…
There are a few obvious issues with centralisation and the possibility of bad actors on the police, but I’m not sure how persuasive it is against “think of the children!!”
There is one argument that many people are missing here. End-to-end encryption is really quite widespread in a number of products today. The WebRTC protocol, for example, is commonly used for videoconferencing. It is natively supported by most browsers and provides a connection between two browsers that is end-to-end encrypted. Since this functionality is so widespread and popular, the onus of proof should be on peop…
I support it 100%, because I have everything to hide as my life is mine and doesn't belong to anyone else, including governments or improbable divinities. If for some people in power this mean I'm either a murderer, a rapist, a drug dealer, a pedophile, a terrorist, or whatever, they're free to spend taxpayers money to find out how wrong their assumptions were, then get voted out of their seats. Anyone using the "if…
I think that's a bit too far... but I get your point.
When having a discussion around privacy, I had no response to "you shouldn't have anything to hide" because I know privacy should somewhat be a human right (especially given its commoditization) but didn't know exactly why it's so important given that most Gen Z kids are sharing every aspect of their lives on social media.
Governments have a long history of doing bad things (e.g. hundreds of millions killed in the last 100 years by USSR/China/Germany but many lesser offenses such as the war on drugs in the US). You often don't get to roll back government powers as a government becomes more corrupt or authoritarian; so once you're in, you're in. Thus; even if giving people privacy allows some crime, it is probably not as bad as all the…
Cars have a long history of killing people, so do planes, so does AIDS, so does... everything, really. So we make changes, we improve, and now AIDs related deaths have dropped off significantly, we haven't had a fatal plane crash in the US in 10 years, and car related deaths in the US have decreased steadily since the 1960s. Yes, governments have a history of being unsafe to their citizens, but it's not anything like…
On one hand, organized crime, observable in most countries where governments are present, on the other hand everyday objects and a disease.
Doesn’t look like an argument made in good faith.
It creates a false dichotomy framing the argument in order to predetermine its outcome.
When made by the very powers who are known to seek to punish And remove the people seeking accountability and change, it is very suspicious.
If the government wanted to prevent sexual abuse of children, they would address such abuse everywhere, including among its own ranks. This is not the highest priority of governments. Their higher priority seems to increase their powers.
I support it 100%, because I have everything to hide as my life is mine and doesn't belong to anyone else, including governments or improbable divinities. If for some people in power this mean I'm either a murderer, a rapist, a drug dealer, a pedophile, a terrorist, or whatever, they're free to spend taxpayers money to find out how wrong their assumptions were, then get voted out of their seats. Anyone using the "if…
They don’t believe this; it’s an argument framed in a bad faith so that they can strip peoples rights and jam laws down our throats. Their mastery is in framing. Never use Or repeat their frame.
See George Lakoff’s work in framing. It’s essential in environment of heavy propaganda.
The only counterpoint to end-to-end is "we want to be able to access your private conversations", which isn't really a counterpoint unless you agree with spying on citizens and would like to also allow the government to come into your house and place listening devices as they please, listen to your phone calls whenever they please, open up your mail whenever they please, so on. Hell, actually require you to wear a device at all times so all conversations can be recorded. No, just no.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
I see these comparisons made so, so frequently and it bothers me. Guns are not the same as encryption or cars. Yet they're so often made in apples to apples comparisons that it's mind boggling to me. Weapons are uniquely special in that they are specifically designed to maim and kill. Via defense or justified actions is irrelevant; it's a tool of war. Arguably, if there was E2E software that was specifically designed…
This is nothing more than a politically motivated lie.
You cannot escape the fact that guns are overwhelmingly used for peaceful purposes that do not include maiming and killing. If this were not the case, Americans would all be dead or maimed by the guns that outnumber people in our country.
Even where the evidence strictly supports your claim, it counters the intent you imply. FBI standards for selecting ammunition, for example, test penetration through clothing and material designed to simulate a human body, but the intent is to stop lethal threats with a minimum of collateral damage. Quite opposite to being "designed for slaughtering", they are designed to minimize harm, while serving a defensive purpose.
> Via defense or justified actions is irrelevant
I think you'd find the opposite to be the case if a person were threatening your own life.