11–20 of 281 posts
Is it not a slippery slope to wanting access to email and pretext for intercepting?
In the USA, email that has been stored for longer than some (fairly short) period I don't remember offhand doesn't require a warrant to access. Just think about that for a while.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's no need to make them mandatory, most people already have cameras and microphones in their homes, schools and workplaces that the government can access. This is more about getting access to the social graph.
I don’t think that is accurate. Just as with end-to-end encrypted messaging apps, they would have to use targeted 0-day exploits to access the cameras and microphones in people’s homes. End-to-end encryption doesn’t protect the social graph. They already know who is talking to who; they just don’t know what is being said.
I don't think we're far away from court ordered wire taps to compel Google to enable the cameras and microphones.
1. How is this really different to government-mandated microphones and cameras in your house, school, workplace, etc? 2. What’s the endgame here? Open-source encrypted messaging software is widely available. The cat is out of the bag. Every country on Earth could outlaw the technology and it would still be trivially easy for criminals to use it. Do the people behind these proposals not see that?
If you want your messages encrypted, do it yourself. Then you are in control, not some big corp.
1. How is this really different to government-mandated microphones and cameras in your house, school, workplace, etc? 2. What’s the endgame here? Open-source encrypted messaging software is widely available. The cat is out of the bag. Every country on Earth could outlaw the technology and it would still be trivially easy for criminals to use it. Do the people behind these proposals not see that?
It's different because you're voluntarily giving information to a third party (Facebook), which the government is asking to share with police.
You may not agree with it, but that's the difference. It's a pretty substantial one.
1. How is this really different to government-mandated microphones and cameras in your house, school, workplace, etc? 2. What’s the endgame here? Open-source encrypted messaging software is widely available. The cat is out of the bag. Every country on Earth could outlaw the technology and it would still be trivially easy for criminals to use it. Do the people behind these proposals not see that?
Using Facebook Messenger, WhatsApp, etc. is optional. Nobody has to use these platforms. So it's unlike having a government-mandated microphone and camera in your home or school, since you could not easily avoid those, and (in most democracies) you have a right to privacy in those places (well, in your home anyway). If you want your messages encrypted, do it yourself. Then you are in control, not some big corp.
Nobody has to use these platforms, unless everyone else is using these platforms.
Have you ever been that one person who is being regularly invited to an event but you aren't in a Messenger or Whatsapp group to receive it? Pretty soon you stop receiving invitations. This is actually worse in the case of Whatsapp outside America, since it's used more often than it should for business, and if you don't make yourself accessible for business, you don't eat.
>If you want your messages encrypted, do it yourself.
I've been "that guy" trying to tell others about PGP. I still get jokes about acting like I'm hiding from the FBI occasionally, even in this age where privacy is mainstream enough where I can point them to a Joe Rogan podcast featuring Edward Snowden. People care, but it has to be frictionless.
1. How is this really different to government-mandated microphones and cameras in your house, school, workplace, etc? 2. What’s the endgame here? Open-source encrypted messaging software is widely available. The cat is out of the bag. Every country on Earth could outlaw the technology and it would still be trivially easy for criminals to use it. Do the people behind these proposals not see that?
> 1. How is this really different to government-mandated microphones and cameras in your house, school, workplace, etc? It's different because you're voluntarily giving information to a third party (Facebook), which the government is asking to share with police. You may not agree with it, but that's the difference. It's a pretty substantial one.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Using Facebook Messenger, WhatsApp, etc. is optional. Nobody has to use these platforms. So it's unlike having a government-mandated microphone and camera in your home or school, since you could not easily avoid those, and (in most democracies) you have a right to privacy in those places (well, in your home anyway). If you want your messages encrypted, do it yourself. Then you are in control, not some big corp.
>Using Facebook Messenger, WhatsApp, etc. is optional. Nobody has to use these platforms. Nobody has to use these platforms, unless everyone else is using these platforms. Have you ever been that one person who is being regularly invited to an event but you aren't in a Messenger or Whatsapp group to receive it? Pretty soon you stop receiving invitations. This is actually worse in the case of Whatsapp outside America,…
No, even if everybody else is using those platforms, it does not force you in anyway to use them. It's still always up to you.
1. How is this really different to government-mandated microphones and cameras in your house, school, workplace, etc? 2. What’s the endgame here? Open-source encrypted messaging software is widely available. The cat is out of the bag. Every country on Earth could outlaw the technology and it would still be trivially easy for criminals to use it. Do the people behind these proposals not see that?
> 1. How is this really different to government-mandated microphones and cameras in your house, school, workplace, etc? It's different because you're voluntarily giving information to a third party (Facebook), which the government is asking to share with police. You may not agree with it, but that's the difference. It's a pretty substantial one.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Using Facebook Messenger, WhatsApp, etc. is optional. Nobody has to use these platforms. Nobody has to use these platforms, unless everyone else is using these platforms. Have you ever been that one person who is being regularly invited to an event but you aren't in a Messenger or Whatsapp group to receive it? Pretty soon you stop receiving invitations. This is actually worse in the case of Whatsapp outside America,…
> Nobody has to use these platforms, unless everyone else is using these platforms. No, even if everybody else is using those platforms, it does not force you in anyway to use them. It's still always up to you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Nobody has to use these platforms, unless everyone else is using these platforms. No, even if everybody else is using those platforms, it does not force you in anyway to use them. It's still always up to you.
Sure, in the way no one is "forcing" you to use email or a phone. You can opt out if you don't mind being unemployed and alone.