721–730 of 780 posts
I see this as follows: 1. Terrorism and trafficking of children will win the moral high ground. 2. App stores will be forced locale by locale to conform to these policies. 3. Most people will not notice or care. 4. This will be used by N-Eyes and totalitarian governments to quash dissent. 5. Meanwhile the tech crowd will create alternate app distribution mechanisms allowing those who care to communicate securely. 6.…
https://matrix.org/blog/2020/10/19/combating-abuse-in-matrix... is our attempt at Matrix to spell out what a catastrophic idea it is to backdoor end-to-end encryption (and to provide an alternative proposal in the form of using decentralised reputation to mitigate abuse. We're kicking decentralised reputation work off in earnest tomorrow, so watch this space to see how it goes). I guess we'll be weighing in on the EU…
What about proposing encryption as an EU human right? Has that been attempted?
That's the argument.
I prefer my conversations to be secret, not just private
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I never said people couldn't respond to them. I said I wasn't going to debate it. Saying “so you admit defeat” (or the many, many variations) whenever someone exits a heated part of a debate is a textbook jab, and has no place in honest conversation.
Fair. I retract my comment. I think what prompted me to react was mostly your `[government bad]` blurb. It felt like you got to state your political position and caricaturise the political position of the responder while avoiding further discussion. That felt wrong.
The argument is now to break open what has been until now a private comms channel in order to catch a few crooks, pedos and nutters. Guess we should all be prepared for a stronger presence of people wearing uniforms in our lives.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree. Your expanded definition is better. Now let's flesh it out into a full-fledged proposal, put it up on a website and disseminate it among the people. Let's get it into the parliaments as something that the parliament members have to discuss and finally either accept or reject. Let's give them a good fight.
> Let's give them a good fight. Possibly the wrong goal. How about "Let's win." instead? :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Some idiot will cut off someones ears and then say to the police that, "it was to deprive him of accessing our communications by using any means. It says so in the law, Sir!"
It would still be criminal on the grounds of breaking the bodily integrity, which is an infringement of someone else's life and health, which is normally considered more protected than privacy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is trivial to create an app using encryption to send messages between two users. On Android you can sideload so no need for app store. You can also solve this with a webpage, this way it can be used on all devices. The point is that creating a secure channel few users use is pretty trivial unless you outlaw crypto libraries. These laws can only take down apps/websites in mainstream use.
This comment sounds like “there is no particular technical obstacles for any nation to start and complete an Apollo Program equivalent”
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are of course aware that "having a law that says one more part of the already illegal activity is illegal" is going to do nothing to stop that illegal activity, right? All this does is criminalize the use of e2ee for everyone, which solves the whole "crime" problems for exactly no one. Your kids aren't any safer, but everyone who needs e2ee (journalists, activists, vulnerable/opressed groups) now needs to engage…
Just curious: do you also apply this argument to the the gun control debate in the United States? In any case, it's quite possible that making something dangerous illegal does indeed stop some would-be bad guys. The truly committed criminals break the law and gain access to the contraband, while the casual/less intelligent criminal is stopped. You have to make a call: is the reduction, but not complete elimination, o…
But we can't, and you know we can't, so I can only assume you're trolling. Stop.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I spent over 30 years in the U.S., mostly in the upper Midwest, and the only gun advertisements I remember seeing were in sporting magazines or in sporting goods stores. I think your perceptions of U.S. gun advertising is either greatly exaggerated, or your experience is from a very different part of the country. Maybe things have changed drastically in the 8 years since I left, but I doubt it.
Maybe things have changed drastically in the 8 years since I left, but I doubt it. I think they have. I've also seen more gun stores opening, with provocative names. I've no problem with firearms used responsibly for hunting or recreation, but in the very few cases I've seen someone open carrying a handgun (once at a very crowded national park, and once at a residential picnic area, both just this year) it was clear…
I figured that the US just seemed to get crazy around 2012 because I switched to primarily external news coverage of the U.S. when I moved abroad.
Actually, now that I think about it, I think I have seen TV ads for both Remington and Beneli shotguns in duck hunting and fishing shows in the U.S. But, I'm pretty sure I've never seen TV ads for pistols in the U.S., or long guns outside of hunting/fishing shows.