7 ms·

Terrorists breath air, therefore we should ban air for everyone?

xkarga00 9y ago
Generally, I try to avoid criticising others but this logic is really disturbing and dangerous and I am very worried about people who stand behind it. It hasn't gotten us anywhere. It never will.
- dexen 9y ago
  Nonsense. Terrorists do use the air to convey voice; air is their primary communication medium for propagating their terrible ideas, and arranging their despicable plans. If we denied them access to air, to stop their voice communication, it would severely limit their ability to harm us. Isn't saving even just one child's life worth it? And don't worry about the terrorists without air not being able to talk about the legal, daily matters. Relevant institutions are already equipped to handle deaf and mute people. They could also just use internet or other service. Just deny them air so they can't talk, okay? It's the common sense solution. /s Slippery slope is a thing, especially when actors with under-handed intentions ask for simplistic, ham-fisted solutions. Once a precedent is established for censorship or snooping, it's pretty hard to draw, and defend, a line in the sand.
  - xkarga00 9y ago
    Does this mean that we should sit back and enjoy the show because "actors with under-handed intentions" and "precedent"s? Wake up. We can only get through collectively.
    - reitanqild 9y ago
      > Does this mean that we should sit back and enjoy the show because "actors with under-handed intentions" and "precedent"s? No. > We can only get through collectively. Yep, but we shouldn't do it by throwing away the freedom we try to defend
- reitanqild 9y ago
  Trying to understand your argument: Are you saying that you think banning perfectly normal everyday things "because terrorism" is ok, ... or did you miss the invisible sarcasm tag?
  - xkarga00 9y ago
    None of the above. What the parent comment is sarcastic about is a line of argument people use, especially politicians who want to promote their agendas.
captainbland 9y ago
Yes, and then we could license it back to people for $30 per month. It's a capitalist nightmare/dream (delete as appropriate based on whether you're a technosocialist or technolibertarian).
- optimuspaul 9y ago
  I think it's a nightmare either way
  - captainbland 9y ago
    Yeah. Plus I shouldn't give any VCs any more ideas.
macspoofing 9y ago
There is no corporate entity supplying terrorists with air. This is why this consumer-based end-to-end encrypted chat messenger space isn't going to go anywhere. Telegram is delusional if they think nations will let them operate this kind of a business. Every terrorist attack where Telegram is used will paint a bigger and bigger bullseye on their backs. The media will get in on it. The public will get in on it. Lawmakers will get in on it. Hacker News will get in on it. The witch hunt against Facebook shows how this will look though the particulars will be different. At the end of the day, Telegram has devs that need to eat and servers to pay for and at the very least all revenue sources will be denied to them.
- RcouF1uZ4gsC 9y ago
  This in amny ways is analogous to the gun debate in the United States. Everytime there is a major shooting, there are calls for certain types of guns to be banned. Every time there is a terrorist attack coordinated by an encrypted chat app, there will be calls to wither ban it or have a backdoor.
  - Mithaldu 9y ago
    Your comment entirely and completely ignores the express intent and purpose of the objects you compare, which makes the comparison invalid.
    - cvwright 9y ago
      The parent post is a nice example of the type of underhanded rhetoric that will eventually be used to sway the public in favor of banning encryption. Pretend your target is inherently evil, and can only be used for inherently evil things. (Terrorism! Child abuse! Piracy!) Then you're perfectly set up to vilify anyone who dares to question your position.
- reitanqild 9y ago
  > Every terrorist attack where Telegram is used will paint a bigger and bigger bullseye on their backs. The media will get in on it. The public will get in on it. Lawmakers will get in on it. Hacker News will get in on it. Here I was, thinking that we here at HN aimed higher. > The witch hunt against Facebook shows how this will look though the particulars will be different. Witch hunt usually implies baseless, made up accusations. When it comes to Facebook I'd phrase it differently; maybe something about consequences or justice?

Generally, I try to avoid criticising others but this logic is really disturbing and dangerous and I am very worried about people who stand behind it. It hasn't gotten us anywhere. It never will.

dexen 9y ago
Nonsense. Terrorists do use the air to convey voice; air is their primary communication medium for propagating their terrible ideas, and arranging their despicable plans. If we denied them access to air, to stop their voice communication, it would severely limit their ability to harm us. Isn't saving even just one child's life worth it? And don't worry about the terrorists without air not being able to talk about the legal, daily matters. Relevant institutions are already equipped to handle deaf and mute people. They could also just use internet or other service. Just deny them air so they can't talk, okay? It's the common sense solution. /s Slippery slope is a thing, especially when actors with under-handed intentions ask for simplistic, ham-fisted solutions. Once a precedent is established for censorship or snooping, it's pretty hard to draw, and defend, a line in the sand.
- xkarga00 9y ago
  Does this mean that we should sit back and enjoy the show because "actors with under-handed intentions" and "precedent"s? Wake up. We can only get through collectively.
  - reitanqild 9y ago
    > Does this mean that we should sit back and enjoy the show because "actors with under-handed intentions" and "precedent"s? No. > We can only get through collectively. Yep, but we shouldn't do it by throwing away the freedom we try to defend
reitanqild 9y ago
Trying to understand your argument: Are you saying that you think banning perfectly normal everyday things "because terrorism" is ok, ... or did you miss the invisible sarcasm tag?
- xkarga00 9y ago
  None of the above. What the parent comment is sarcastic about is a line of argument people use, especially politicians who want to promote their agendas.

captainbland 9y ago

Yes, and then we could license it back to people for $30 per month. It's a capitalist nightmare/dream (delete as appropriate based on whether you're a technosocialist or technolibertarian).

optimuspaul 9y ago
I think it's a nightmare either way
- captainbland 9y ago
  Yeah. Plus I shouldn't give any VCs any more ideas.

macspoofing 9y ago

There is no corporate entity supplying terrorists with air. This is why this consumer-based end-to-end encrypted chat messenger space isn't going to go anywhere. Telegram is delusional if they think nations will let them operate this kind of a business. Every terrorist attack where Telegram is used will paint a bigger and bigger bullseye on their backs. The media will get in on it. The public will get in on it. Lawmakers will get in on it. Hacker News will get in on it. The witch hunt against Facebook shows how this will look though the particulars will be different. At the end of the day, Telegram has devs that need to eat and servers to pay for and at the very least all revenue sources will be denied to them.

RcouF1uZ4gsC 9y ago
This in amny ways is analogous to the gun debate in the United States. Everytime there is a major shooting, there are calls for certain types of guns to be banned. Every time there is a terrorist attack coordinated by an encrypted chat app, there will be calls to wither ban it or have a backdoor.
- Mithaldu 9y ago
  Your comment entirely and completely ignores the express intent and purpose of the objects you compare, which makes the comparison invalid.
  - cvwright 9y ago
    The parent post is a nice example of the type of underhanded rhetoric that will eventually be used to sway the public in favor of banning encryption. Pretend your target is inherently evil, and can only be used for inherently evil things. (Terrorism! Child abuse! Piracy!) Then you're perfectly set up to vilify anyone who dares to question your position.
reitanqild 9y ago
> Every terrorist attack where Telegram is used will paint a bigger and bigger bullseye on their backs. The media will get in on it. The public will get in on it. Lawmakers will get in on it. Hacker News will get in on it. Here I was, thinking that we here at HN aimed higher. > The witch hunt against Facebook shows how this will look though the particulars will be different. Witch hunt usually implies baseless, made up accusations. When it comes to Facebook I'd phrase it differently; maybe something about consequences or justice?