3 ms·
> absence of proof is not proof of absence I don't think this applies here. I suppose your point is goverment's exploits might be effective but they keep it lo
by elmigranto 10y ago
> absence of proof is not proof of absence
I don't think this applies here. I suppose your point is goverment's exploits might be effective but they keep it low not to expose the fact of their existence.
Well, this might very well justify anything from 1984 or any other anti-utopia — "let us do whatever, it is effective and needed, but we won't give any facts or details, because it might compromise our system".
- slg 10y agoYou are proving my point. Not everything is black and white. Not every slope is slippery. There is room for discussion and compromise. You comparing the people on the other side of the debate to fans of 1984 style totalitarian government gets nothing accomplished just like people on the other side saying you are enabling terrorists gets nothing accomplished. The only difference is that the other side of the debate is already in power. So if the tech community doesn't even want to discuss this issue, guess which side of the issue will win the debate and decide future encryption law.
- int_19h 10y agoWriting the law is easy. Enforcing it, on the other hand ...