6 ms·
I would. It's not Protonmail who's to be blamed for the potential attack and deaths. There are series of events that lead to people deciding to be terrorists.
by fraktl 7y ago
I would.
It's not Protonmail who's to be blamed for the potential attack and deaths. There are series of events that lead to people deciding to be terrorists. I'd focus on those reasons rather than hotfixing stuff by exposing 99.9% of other Protonmail users.
I would never opt in to affect 99.9% of users because of 0.01% of users. We are all educated enough through events in recent history that clearly tell us how similar use cases lead to abuse, every single time without exception.
Given these constraints, Russia's decision to block Protonmail is perfectly fine and the only logical outcome.
- abyssin 7y agoIt seems you are writing two contradictory arguments. On the one hand you say hotfixing is no solution for terrorism. On the other hand you say blocking Protonmail is fine. Is there some irony that I missed here?
- takeda 7y agoI don't see contradiction there. He is against proton mail disclosing information of its users, and if Russia decides to block access to their service in revenge, so be it.
- abyssin 7y agoThanks for clarifying, it was a genuine question.
- fraktl 7y agotakeda summed it correctly. I'm not contradicting anything.
- n0mad01 7y agomore like 99.999%
- tristor 7y agoI agree with your reasoning, and I hear this reasoning a lot in the technical community. I wonder if you evenly apply this to other political issues? There's an incongruity in how people think about privacy rights in the Western world and how they think about property rights, especially in relation to self-defense.
- brightball 7y agoIt may be painting with a broad brush to assume the inconsistency in views is among a group of people vs a single individual. Most individuals who hold a view based on logical principles tend to be consistent on that application while people who react more emotionally will tend to flutter in the wind more. I’d be curious to hear your reasoning.
- commoner 7y agofraktl's position on property rights is irrelevant to fraktl's position on privacy rights.
- bilekas 7y ago> I would never opt in to affect 99.9% of users because of 0.01% of users Exactly. And thats the only point which needs to be made here. It's like if one person was drink driving and hit someone. saying : "Well now thats it, we need to ban driving".
- vageli 7y agoYeah, why aren't breathalyzers mandated in every vehicle? Even though we as a society pretty uniformly agree (from the people I've spoken with) that drunk driving is bad in every case, why don't we resort to such extreme measures? Why don't we just strip prisoners naked and keep them in glass cages? We would certainly need fewer armed guards if that were the case. Thank goodness we are not there yet.
- rapnie 7y agoFunny thing is in France they did require having breathalyzers in your car by law. But it is not really in effect now. https://www.drive-france.com/faqs/france-breathalyzer-law/ https://www.drive-france.com/faqs/france-breathalyzer-law/
- tsukikage 7y agoI have to admit, I never quite understood the purpose of requiring you to keep a breathalyzer kit in the car without requiring you to actually use it.
- HenryBemis 7y agoFollowing up on the "bombs and guns and explosives" comment: 1) protonmail should not be guilty in the same sense the bus drivers that drove the two buses where two terrorists rode, should also not be guilty 2) to orchestrate an attack it takes "a long time", you need plenty of money, guns/ explosives, you need the training, you need the storage, you need the know-how.. there are so many steps in that process where someone can be busted.. also keep in mind that most terrorist organisation are already infiltrated, and the "agents" are just waiting for the right time to bust them (not too early so they have enough evidence/they learn more about the connections/ resources) and not so late that there is a chance for the attack to go through. This is why London attacks wete effective, it was lone wolves. Every time I see in the news that "a bomb failed to go off and X arrests were made" I feel that the 3-letter-agencies gave "them" playdoh instead of <insert explosive>.
- noelsusman 7y agoI can understand this in the specific context of Russia, but I honestly don't understand this as a general principle. Allowing the police to convince a judge to issue a warrant for information on a few ProtonMail users doesn't expose 99.9% of other ProtonMail users to anything. Why would a warrant to kick somebody's door down be okay while a warrant for this is not? Are you opposed to all types of police warrants? There is a balance between privacy and catching bad guys, but I often get the sense that much of this community believes the police should never be able to invade somebody's privacy even if they have evidence that person committed a crime. That doesn't seem like a sensible balance to me, and it's an extreme position to take. Am I misunderstanding?
- slenk 7y agoThe most important point - The owners of ProtonMail cannot decrypt the email of their customers. Second, a warrant for breaking into physical property in their jurisdiction is very different than digital property on servers in a different country. For one, Russia's judges have no authority there.