3 ms·

I do care about the right to privacy, and the freedom of speech. But I also care about police being able to investigate these new ways of communication that cri

I do care about the right to privacy, and the freedom of speech. But I also care about police being able to investigate these new ways of communication that criminals have at their disposal. If it were classic letters, phone calls, or a restaurant discussion these would have easily been intercepted by the police. The same needs to happen with online communication when there is a crime taking place. And online communication can only be "intercepted" by storing it somewhere and making it available when need be.

asaddhamani 7y ago
It's a slippery slope. Making a system insecure for one makes it insecure for all. A 'secure' data storage system with a backdoor is not a 'secure' system at all. And criminals can build their own encrypted apps. They don't need to use PSN to communicate. And if you look at some of the more oppressive regimes in the world, a lot of things that you and I would consider freedom of speech, they would consider a crime and lock you up for it. "It is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer"
- ossworkerrights 7y ago
  I agree with the statement that oppressive regimes around the world abuse this, but I would argue it's up to peoples of those countries to fight back. "They don't need to use PSN to communicate." but they do, and that's the issue. We know they use publicly accessible communication systems that law enforcement needs to have visibility over _when required and approved by a judge_. Therefore I think the issue is how do we make sure that law enforcement can access such data when they genuinely need to? What laws need to change in that regard, instead of what laws need to be made so we can obscure their visibility even more, and have the likes of ISIS or other organised cults / crime rings organise right in front of us. To be honest, although a very bad thing, i'd rather have one person falsely accused rather than 100 people dead because of a terrorist attack organised on the PSN network that we just wouldn't hand data over, so we can protect kids' privacy over making jokes about "yo mama".

asaddhamani 7y ago

It's a slippery slope. Making a system insecure for one makes it insecure for all. A 'secure' data storage system with a backdoor is not a 'secure' system at all. And criminals can build their own encrypted apps. They don't need to use PSN to communicate. And if you look at some of the more oppressive regimes in the world, a lot of things that you and I would consider freedom of speech, they would consider a crime and lock you up for it. "It is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer"

ossworkerrights 7y ago
I agree with the statement that oppressive regimes around the world abuse this, but I would argue it's up to peoples of those countries to fight back. "They don't need to use PSN to communicate." but they do, and that's the issue. We know they use publicly accessible communication systems that law enforcement needs to have visibility over _when required and approved by a judge_. Therefore I think the issue is how do we make sure that law enforcement can access such data when they genuinely need to? What laws need to change in that regard, instead of what laws need to be made so we can obscure their visibility even more, and have the likes of ISIS or other organised cults / crime rings organise right in front of us. To be honest, although a very bad thing, i'd rather have one person falsely accused rather than 100 people dead because of a terrorist attack organised on the PSN network that we just wouldn't hand data over, so we can protect kids' privacy over making jokes about "yo mama".