4 ms·

You went full straw man real quick. Where in this chain is anyone advocating shutting anything down by force? And how did we go from dealing drugs to terrorism

• donatj 9y ago
  I wouldn't call asking you to clarify your position going strawman.
  • tomjakubowski 9y ago
    I would, when the question makes unjustified presumptions about the person's position. GP asked "where do you draw the line?" to a person who didn't make any normative claim at all.
    • deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
• tertius 9y ago
  It's an analogy. Remove your objection of force here to stay on topic. A quote: > if not a majority, of the profits of his service came through being an enabler to criminal activity. He's being realistic on the subject In the same way Signal would be an enabler of terrorism. Let's call both equivalent. Crime = crime. Is encryption (or even the concept of privacy) then unethical because some benefit from it wrongly? Bottomline: Just because we realize that people commit crime with tools not intended for crime should we then outlaw those tools?
  • matt4077 9y ago
    To just repeat what others have said: nobody is advocating outlawing those tools. To add something: When you're running such a service and care about the right to privacy, you should try to minimise its use for illegal purposes whenever possible. It's quite counterproductive to glorify that criminal activity as some sort of heroic effort in defence of privacy rights, and gloating about it with a sort of haha-cant-stop-the-terrorist-inyourface. Because, yes, if your privacy tool becomes useful enough for that clientele to cause significant harm, people will start supporting its ban.