3 ms·
That's literally a provably false assumption. The second they realize it's insecure (which will take exactly one raid), they'll switch to something els
by JamisonM 7y ago
That's literally a provably false assumption.
The second they realize it's insecure (which
will take exactly one raid), they'll switch
to something else.
It is trivial to prove that the second a criminal realizes a given communication mechanism is insecure they do not stop using it if it is convenient.
Has every criminal in the world stopped using the phone after the first phone was ever tapped?
And ALL of the above assumes that there
are no criminal programmers and thus they
have no ability to just write their own tools
But we know there are more than 0 non-programmer criminals who will not be writing their own tools.
You need better arguments than "if we can't stop all crime with an action it has no value" because it is a silly argument.
- krzepah 7y agoThey don't need to write up the tools, just to use them, they are widely available
- feanaro 7y ago> You need better arguments than "if we can't stop all crime with an action it has no value" because it is a silly argument. Arguments like "we all need to abandon privacy to maybe, potentially stop some crime somewhere" are equally silly.
- JamisonM 7y agoAgreed. Everyone should avoid silly arguments.
- kortilla 7y agoYou do know software can be downloaded without knowing how to program it yourself right?