4 ms·

You speak of strawman, yet respond with more strawmen. Interesting tactic. But, ultimately, the security and safety of the American public is served best by a

You speak of strawman, yet respond with more strawmen. Interesting tactic. But, ultimately, the security and safety of the American public is served best by actually using software and services that are safe and secure. When the Federal government works against that they are undermining the security of the American public. It's not very complicated. The interests of the government do not align with the interests of the American public.

bayesian_horse 7y ago
It's not a strawman. If you oppose my statement that the Jakuza probably liked using normal telephones without fear of the police listening (on what logic exactly), you do seem do advocate totally outlawing surveillance, don't you? And if you really don't think surveillance should be completely outlawed, as it was in Japan for a time, then you don't have any basis for disagreeing with me.
- coldtea 7y ago
  >It's not a strawman. If you oppose my statement that the Jakuza probably liked using normal telephones without fear of the police listening (on what logic exactly), you do seem do advocate totally outlawing surveillance, don't you? Well, Jakuza could find 50000 ways to bypass the "police listening". Tapping telephones had not really helped thwart Latin/Central American drug dealers (which got 10x as big and dangerous from when wiretapping was far more difficult). Heck, in Italy, where the state could quite easily wiretap anybody, has a much bigger "Yakuza" style problem... Plus, a state can always get warrants and tap when it's needed, e.g. for suspected or known Jakuza members, without having to do it for everybody...
  - deogeo 7y ago
    > Plus, a state can always get warrants and tap when it's needed, e.g. for suspected or known Jakuza members, without having to do it for everybody... Wait, but this sub-thread started with "all wiretapping was illegal" - so it was not only warrantles wiretapping that was illegal, if I understood it correctly.
  - bayesian_horse 7y ago
    Well, if someone isn't willing to accept that easy evasion of surveillance (normal phones) rather than more difficult evasion (burner phones, code words, walkie talkies) is a benefit to criminals, even though countless criminals are convicted because of exactly that surveillance, there is no common reality left over which to argue, is there? Fun Fact: Central American cartels have indeed switched to communication channels that are harder to intercept. And boiling down such a complicated issue as cartel violence to a simple issue as phone surveillance is at best dishonest.
    - coldtea 7y ago
      >Well, if someone isn't willing to accept that easy evasion of surveillance (normal phones) rather than more difficult evasion (burner phones, code words, walkie talkies) is a benefit to criminals, even though countless criminals are convicted because of exactly that surveillance, there is no common reality left over which to argue, is there? Well, if one can't use basic common sense, and instead believe that just because wiretapping was illegal, criminals the Yakuza casually talked in normal phones and didn't already use burner phones, code words, walkie talkies, etc, I don't know what is left to argue...
      - bayesian_horse 7y ago
        You just don't want to listen, do you? It's a basic fact that criminals use basic communications like phone and text messaging all the time. It's a fact they get caught because of that, all the time (sometimes even the most sophisticated and organized ones). It's a fact that using less susceptible means of communications, like walkie talkies and encrypted messaging, is more difficult. Which of these basic facts are you disputing?

bayesian_horse 7y ago

It's not a strawman. If you oppose my statement that the Jakuza probably liked using normal telephones without fear of the police listening (on what logic exactly), you do seem do advocate totally outlawing surveillance, don't you? And if you really don't think surveillance should be completely outlawed, as it was in Japan for a time, then you don't have any basis for disagreeing with me.

coldtea 7y ago
>It's not a strawman. If you oppose my statement that the Jakuza probably liked using normal telephones without fear of the police listening (on what logic exactly), you do seem do advocate totally outlawing surveillance, don't you? Well, Jakuza could find 50000 ways to bypass the "police listening". Tapping telephones had not really helped thwart Latin/Central American drug dealers (which got 10x as big and dangerous from when wiretapping was far more difficult). Heck, in Italy, where the state could quite easily wiretap anybody, has a much bigger "Yakuza" style problem... Plus, a state can always get warrants and tap when it's needed, e.g. for suspected or known Jakuza members, without having to do it for everybody...
- deogeo 7y ago
  > Plus, a state can always get warrants and tap when it's needed, e.g. for suspected or known Jakuza members, without having to do it for everybody... Wait, but this sub-thread started with "all wiretapping was illegal" - so it was not only warrantles wiretapping that was illegal, if I understood it correctly.
- bayesian_horse 7y ago
  Well, if someone isn't willing to accept that easy evasion of surveillance (normal phones) rather than more difficult evasion (burner phones, code words, walkie talkies) is a benefit to criminals, even though countless criminals are convicted because of exactly that surveillance, there is no common reality left over which to argue, is there? Fun Fact: Central American cartels have indeed switched to communication channels that are harder to intercept. And boiling down such a complicated issue as cartel violence to a simple issue as phone surveillance is at best dishonest.
  - coldtea 7y ago
    >Well, if someone isn't willing to accept that easy evasion of surveillance (normal phones) rather than more difficult evasion (burner phones, code words, walkie talkies) is a benefit to criminals, even though countless criminals are convicted because of exactly that surveillance, there is no common reality left over which to argue, is there? Well, if one can't use basic common sense, and instead believe that just because wiretapping was illegal, criminals the Yakuza casually talked in normal phones and didn't already use burner phones, code words, walkie talkies, etc, I don't know what is left to argue...
    - bayesian_horse 7y ago
      You just don't want to listen, do you? It's a basic fact that criminals use basic communications like phone and text messaging all the time. It's a fact they get caught because of that, all the time (sometimes even the most sophisticated and organized ones). It's a fact that using less susceptible means of communications, like walkie talkies and encrypted messaging, is more difficult. Which of these basic facts are you disputing?