3 ms·
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 enab
by 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 agoTo 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.