3 ms·

> there's absolutely nothing substantiating her claim. yes, and this is very weird. She must have a chain of reasoning going on in her head before opening her

by cJ0th 9y ago

> there's absolutely nothing substantiating her claim. yes, and this is very weird. She must have a chain of reasoning going on in her head before opening her mouth, right? We always only get the conclusion, that is: "we need more access". Any normal person looking for a solution to a problem would generate loads of ideas and then, when pitching an idea, present the pros/cons of their various ideas to finally argue why they have chosen solution x. We don't see any of that wrt to this topic.

sametmax 9y ago
The chain of reasoning is: - I want more power/money/whatever - suerveillance can give it to me - I just need to pass the bill once to get it to work for years in my favor - they have to reject it at every attempt I try to pass it - therefor I should try to pass it everytime the news let me do a bold claim - nobody is going to do shit against it anyway
discombobulate 9y ago
> She must have a chain of reasoning going on in her head before opening her mouth, right? Control thoughts -> No bad thoughts
- cJ0th 9y ago
  But that's not reasoning. That's jumping to conclusions.
  - discombobulate 9y ago
    Quite!
threeseed 9y ago
> We don't see any of that wrt to this topic. There are countless studies that get conducted every year by universities, think tanks, NGOs and journalist style organisations on this topic. And these are tabled in parliament, reviewed by ministers and debated in intelligence committees and within cabinet. In Australia for example we have Senate Estimate Hearings which are freely available online for you to watch. To think that governments are not exploring every avenue in order to protect their citizens is a bit ridiculous.
- cJ0th 9y ago
  > There are countless studies that get conducted every year by universities, think tanks, NGOs and journalist style organisations on this topic. Could you name me one credible source that advocates the banning of encryption? At Harvard, for instance, they concluded that banning encryption is futile. [0] [0] https://www.dailydot.com/layer8/worldwide-survey-of-encryption-products/ https://www.dailydot.com/layer8/worldwide-survey-of-encrypti...

by cJ0th 9y ago

sametmax 9y ago

The chain of reasoning is: - I want more power/money/whatever - suerveillance can give it to me - I just need to pass the bill once to get it to work for years in my favor - they have to reject it at every attempt I try to pass it - therefor I should try to pass it everytime the news let me do a bold claim - nobody is going to do shit against it anyway

discombobulate 9y ago

> She must have a chain of reasoning going on in her head before opening her mouth, right? Control thoughts -> No bad thoughts

cJ0th 9y ago
But that's not reasoning. That's jumping to conclusions.
- discombobulate 9y ago
  Quite!

threeseed 9y ago

> We don't see any of that wrt to this topic. There are countless studies that get conducted every year by universities, think tanks, NGOs and journalist style organisations on this topic. And these are tabled in parliament, reviewed by ministers and debated in intelligence committees and within cabinet. In Australia for example we have Senate Estimate Hearings which are freely available online for you to watch. To think that governments are not exploring every avenue in order to protect their citizens is a bit ridiculous.

cJ0th 9y ago
> There are countless studies that get conducted every year by universities, think tanks, NGOs and journalist style organisations on this topic. Could you name me one credible source that advocates the banning of encryption? At Harvard, for instance, they concluded that banning encryption is futile. [0] [0] https://www.dailydot.com/layer8/worldwide-survey-of-encryption-products/ https://www.dailydot.com/layer8/worldwide-survey-of-encrypti...