4 ms·
Which is hilarious and hypocritical, since the government keeps talking about making end-to-end encryption apps illegal to distribute without backdoors. Now the
by blotter_paper 7y ago
Which is hilarious and hypocritical, since the government keeps talking about making end-to-end encryption apps illegal to distribute without backdoors. Now they're using an encryption app with a backdoor,* and they're upset about it? I thought this is what they wanted!
*I know, I know, this probably wasn't done with a backdoor -- it's just funnier to lie in this context.
- chatmasta 7y agoIn fact, demonstrating this point is probably part of the reason Facebook is litigating this case. It gives them a solid example of the risks of backdoors that they can point to when governments ask for them.
- K0SM0S 7y agoThere's a nice plot stemming from there. “A rogue big tech employee puts on a grey hat to orchestrate a hack + personal blackmail on government officials, to instill a deep fear out of them and make them realize the folly of refusing end-to-end encryption.”
- mlthoughts2018 7y agoMr Robot season 5
- criley2 7y agoThe real irony comes from an Administration who ran on the odious idea of "locking up" government employees who mishandled communications, who then turns around and begins a mass campaign of mishandling communications...
- barkingcat 7y ago"You're doing mishandling of communications wrong. Here, let me show you how to really mishandle communications."
- meddlepal 7y ago"Rules for thee but not for me."
- cameronbrown 7y agoThe government isn't a monolithic entity, remember.
- chibg10 7y ago“The government” is not a homogeneous entity.
- hanniabu 7y agoHow else do you expect them to conduct illegal activities?
- ineedasername 7y agoThe same way most large governments & corporations do it: Without any accountability or consequences.
- fouric 7y agoHypocritical? How many of your personal secrets (or even your corporate secrets) would cause >= thousands of people to die or >= billions of taxpayer dollars to be lost if they were leaked?
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- huehehue 7y agoI don't think people with more impactful secrets deserve more privacy than anybody else.
- fmihaila 7y ago> How many of your personal secrets (or even your corporate secrets) would cause >= thousands of people to die or >= billions of taxpayer dollars to be lost if they were leaked? Personal means, and should continue to mean, something. I'm not willing to let governments define what is personal to me.
- heavenlyblue 7y agoSuppose I am a pedophile and somebody discovers that. They then use that as a leverage against me to perform something entirely else, which is illegal, too. In the context of our society, me being a pedophile is better than me being a pedophile who also does other illegal things to cover that up.
- eru 7y agoThat's only true after the fact. Up front the prospect of even greater damage might deter people. Similar to how punishing wrong-doers in general doesn't help anyone after the fact, but one justification people bring up is deterrence before the fact. (I profess no firm opinion in the matter. This is just giving the argument a steelmanning.)
- bertil 7y agoI suspect your example would be more compelling if you used a first breach in ethics that would be less heinous. Cheating on your spouse is a common one to defend privacy of bad people; tax dodging if you want something illegal.
- ineedasername 7y agoI guess they just don't like the inconvenience of having to find the backdoors on their own. It's hard work! But hard work has never killed anyone* *With the exception of people forced to work to death, or under unsafe conditions, or that were doing a perfectly reasonable amount of hard work that none the less triggered a heart attack. Or...
- celticninja 7y agoDepends, if months of hard work results in a drive strike, it could be said to have killed some one.