4 ms·

Yeah I believe also trains, cars, food, water and oxygen played a role, something should be done about those too. If that ever happens, open source to the rescu

by dewiz 11y ago

Yeah I believe also trains, cars, food, water and oxygen played a role, something should be done about those too. If that ever happens, open source to the rescue, politicians might as well make that illegal.

mc32 11y ago
This is all true, but it's also true "governments" had previously had [court ordered or otherwise, depending on jurisdiction] access to communications, when necessary in order to track individuals or obtain evidence. The claim is that now people can choose technologies which allow them to evade communications interception [easily] which frustrates governments when they want to intercept communications. I don't think it's far fetched to believe if not the US countries abroad will require technology vendors to provide interception systems ala BlackBerry. Big enough markets, can say, Apple, you can still sell in our country[1] but you must grant access [MITM, whatever] and you know what, Apple will not want to see its growth markets evaporate. [1] They'd also disallow non-approved apps from country app store and also disallow carriers from allowing jailbroken handsets.
- terryf 11y ago
  Like the saying goes, if you outlaw guns, only the outlaws will have guns. Seriously. Ever heard of steganography? Police being able to listen in to communications for selected individuals, based on court orders is of course something that is necessary for safety, nobody is arguing that. The difference is the scale of the ability to survey. You can argue that the scale doesn't matter, but it does. The only difference between uber and your local taxi company with 10 cars is also scale. Being able to scale surveillance trivially is the thing that must be fought against, because it erodes the freedom of people. After all, the freedom of people to live their lives as they wish is what we're protecting after all, isn't it?
  - TeMPOraL 11y ago
    > After all, the freedom of people to live their lives as they wish is what we're protecting after all, isn't it? Is it? I thought it's freedom to live their lives as long as they follow the law?
    - terryf 11y ago
      No, it's exactly the reverse in fact! Laws are supposed to be made to make living life better for the majority. Many problems stem from thinking the opposite.
mirimir 11y ago
Well said! Also, only criminals want to keep their thoughts private. Every home needs a covert monitor.
jacquesm 11y ago
Personally, I blame mothers milk. It's the root of all evil.

by dewiz 11y ago

mc32 11y ago

This is all true, but it's also true "governments" had previously had [court ordered or otherwise, depending on jurisdiction] access to communications, when necessary in order to track individuals or obtain evidence. The claim is that now people can choose technologies which allow them to evade communications interception [easily] which frustrates governments when they want to intercept communications. I don't think it's far fetched to believe if not the US countries abroad will require technology vendors to provide interception systems ala BlackBerry. Big enough markets, can say, Apple, you can still sell in our country[1] but you must grant access [MITM, whatever] and you know what, Apple will not want to see its growth markets evaporate. [1] They'd also disallow non-approved apps from country app store and also disallow carriers from allowing jailbroken handsets.

terryf 11y ago
Like the saying goes, if you outlaw guns, only the outlaws will have guns. Seriously. Ever heard of steganography? Police being able to listen in to communications for selected individuals, based on court orders is of course something that is necessary for safety, nobody is arguing that. The difference is the scale of the ability to survey. You can argue that the scale doesn't matter, but it does. The only difference between uber and your local taxi company with 10 cars is also scale. Being able to scale surveillance trivially is the thing that must be fought against, because it erodes the freedom of people. After all, the freedom of people to live their lives as they wish is what we're protecting after all, isn't it?
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  > After all, the freedom of people to live their lives as they wish is what we're protecting after all, isn't it? Is it? I thought it's freedom to live their lives as long as they follow the law?
  - terryf 11y ago
    No, it's exactly the reverse in fact! Laws are supposed to be made to make living life better for the majority. Many problems stem from thinking the opposite.

mirimir 11y ago

Well said! Also, only criminals want to keep their thoughts private. Every home needs a covert monitor.

jacquesm 11y ago

Personally, I blame mothers milk. It's the root of all evil.