4 ms·
Even if we accept public surveillance I think technology has to be the boundary. We push so much data into our smartphones, most of us literally sending our tho
by cameronbrown 7y ago
Even if we accept public surveillance I think technology has to be the boundary. We push so much data into our smartphones, most of us literally sending our thoughts through private companies non-stop.
To allow digital surveillance is to allow the government into your head and our children's heads.
No.
It stops here.
- bayesian_horse 7y agoEnd-to-End encryption is not about preventing "Digital surveillance" at all. Nor does it prevent Facebook from abusing your data. The only benefit to an average user is that no Facebook employee can look at your text messages. Law enforcement agencies don't look at text messages of average users, and even in the collect-everything scenarios, they don't take notice of virtually anyone, on average. It's really mostly the criminals that benefit disproportionally from default encryption in facebook messages. From the perspective of US law, you might not want LEAs to read your text messages, but even if they could, they can't do anything about it even up to threatening them. Free speech in the US is pretty limitless, up to the point that such speech infringes on the rights of other people or endangers them.
- cameronbrown 7y agoI beg to differ. I actually don't mind targeted ads, but I do have a massive problem with Facebook giving that data to the government. > Free speech in the US is pretty limitless, up to the point that such speech infringes on the rights of other people or endangers them. The US Constitution explicitly makes calls to violence illegal.
- SamReidHughes 7y ago> The US Constitution explicitly makes calls to violence illegal. Um, no it most certainly does not.
- cameronbrown 7y agoOkay, more like calls to violence aren't protected free speech.
- SamReidHughes 7y agoYes, in fact, they are. Under the current state of jurisprudence.
- icebraining 7y agoThe text of the US constitution has no explicit exceptions to first amendment, those were introduced by the supreme court upon interpretation of the purpose of the amendment.
- bayesian_horse 7y agoFacebook is not giving over text messages of average users to law enforcement, so far. It still requires due process for LEAs to get that data or to do anything with it.
- Schoolmeister 7y agoOkay. But who gets to define what constitutes a criminal?
- bayesian_horse 7y agoIn the particular case of US jurisdiction, and many other Western democracies, that is defined by the applicable laws as issued by the legislature. There is no better way to define "criminal", despite all the shortcomings.