161–170 of 438 posts
I’m struggling to square Vance and the administration’s position here with the fact that the US IC uses GCHQ to collect on US persons since they’re not allowed to do so directly. Why wouldn’t they want it to be easier for NSA to spy on Americans?
I really sort of expected that by the time I reached my age that we'd have more policy makers that understood tech a little better. I feel like in the last say 25 or more years ... the needle hasn't moved.
This article is explicitly about how J.D. Vance (age 40) & others at the White House are forcefully advocating for preserving E2E encryption. Arguably not for the right reasons, but still. I'm not sure what you mean by "more" but what you are asking for is in fact happening.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I guess not no, but we don't need those, really. We definitely don't want carbon copies of those companies because they are causing a lot of what's wrong with this world. What we need is more ethical companies that understand the EU market. No paying with our data, no manipulative algorithms. We've been pushing for that for years but Trump has been the turning point, now people are really on board with the idea that…
I agree that no one needs Facebook and if it disappeared off of the face of the earth, nothing of value would be lost. And even a simplified version of AWS shouldn’t be impossible to build that’s “good enough” [1] or another search engine that’s good enough (Google) and Google search sucks these days anyway. But Europe is not going to be able to replicate the ecosystem of Android like China did and definitely not App…
Even if 98% of it is unnecessary garbage, the functionality for that last 2% has provided a ton of utility to billions of people.
The UK is the same country that arrests 12,000 people a year for posting online.
> Now every force in the country has a team sifting through people’s posts trying to determine what crosses an undefined threshold. “It is a complete nightmare,” one officer admits
Britain’s police are restricting speech in worrying ways https://www.economist.com/britain/2025/05/15/britains-police... From The Economist
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't see why you think they don't understand the tech. This is going to be heresy here, but honestly I think it's a reasonable position. Not one I would take, but reasonable. For the first time in human history there can be large scale communication it is mathematically impossible for governments to have any access to. If you believe that governments are doing the job of protecting their citizens (and many do), it…
But also for the first time in human history, it's possible to do large-scale surveillance without large-scale human effort. The power of the network goes both ways. Phone wiretapping (until recently I suppose) and mail inspection required a human to take some action to listen in; you couldn't just monitor everyone's communications. Now you can.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Again - extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. It's no secret that there are groups actively looking for new exploits and that sometimes vulnerabilities are discovered that become zero days. It's a good bet that police and security services take an active interest in those vulnerabilities when they are found. But that's very different to claiming the police can easily unlock any device any time they wan…
There’s nothing extraordinary about the implications of what was said.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The U.S. also attempted to force Apple to add a back door just a decade ago. > Tim Cook, the C.E.O. of Apple, which has been ordered to help the F.B.I. get into the cell phone of the San Bernardino shooters, wrote in an angry open letter this week that "the U.S. government has asked us for something we simply do not have, and something we consider too dangerous to create." The second part of that formulation has righ…
You need to think about what they don’t say with these matters. He said Apple does not have and won’t create a backdoor. That was well crafted and means exactly what he said, any implicit meaning is an artifact of your brain.
I absolutely don't actually know anything about Apple, but I've seen some of the ways even small companies legally split themselves up to avoid tax or various forms of liability. Multiple phone numbers to the same phone, multiple domains and email providers to the same laptop. Multiple denials that you've ever heard of the other company let alone happen to share the same office space...
There's a massive difference between a truthful statement and an honest one; anyone that works with code should understand that.
I really sort of expected that by the time I reached my age that we'd have more policy makers that understood tech a little better. I feel like in the last say 25 or more years ... the needle hasn't moved.
This article is explicitly about how J.D. Vance (age 40) & others at the White House are forcefully advocating for preserving E2E encryption. Arguably not for the right reasons, but still. I'm not sure what you mean by "more" but what you are asking for is in fact happening.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a lot easier now because there's a huge demand all of a sudden for local services. Previously it was hard to compete with the US because the lack of regulation there and investors in the EU having more expectations rather than just throwing money at the wall and hoping it sticks. But with the exploitative business models like Google's consumer tracking and now with Trump and his trade wars the US is no longer vi…
After the local EU services/products all have Brussels Mandated encryption back-doors and permit free decrypting of your private data, I will bet there will be a surge back to non-EU services. https://www.bankinfosecurity.com/eu-pushes-for-backdoors-in-...