3 ms·

> required by law to build into their hardware ways for authorities to access the networks for lawful purposes A bit of a tangent but ... How I hate this term

by zmmmmm 7y ago

> required by law to build into their hardware ways for authorities to access the networks for lawful purposes A bit of a tangent but ... How I hate this term "lawful purposes". It's a non-sequitor / dark pattern deployed to confuse consumers into not understanding that they mean "spy on you". "Lawful" just means compliant with the law. In other words, they are are NOT saying "necessary to enforce the law" which is what they want you to think. They are only saying, hey, we won't break the law when we use this feature, aren't we great? Like breaking the law would ever be OK and as if this disclaimer somehow adds any sort of reassurance. The implied logic is "normally we would just break the law to access your data but in this special case we'll follow it. /tangent

sillysaurusx 7y ago
Are you sure you’d want to live in a society that was incapable of spying on you when they decided it was necessary? (This argument hinges on that pesky word “necessary”. But it’s worth thinking about which conditions you’d be ok with the state surveilling others, and who exactly “others” refers to.)
- godelski 7y ago
  > who exactly “others” refers to Historically, people of color and political dissidents.
- A4ET8a8uTh0 7y ago
  Sadly, that is exactly how ideas like that promulgate. It won't affect me. It will only affect the others, the undesirables, the trouble makers, and misc. whippersnappers. I know it will not affect me and people like me, because implemented rules will ensure that. My parents lived in a society you seem to yearn for. Hard pass.
- zmmmmm 7y ago
  I think that's a perfectly reasonable debate to have. However that's exactly why I think they should not use deceptive language to confuse people. People need to understand exactly what is being done to have trust in it and to debate it so they can form reasonable opinions - not be deceived into thinking one thing is happening when actually something much more intrusive is going on.

by zmmmmm 7y ago

sillysaurusx 7y ago

Are you sure you’d want to live in a society that was incapable of spying on you when they decided it was necessary? (This argument hinges on that pesky word “necessary”. But it’s worth thinking about which conditions you’d be ok with the state surveilling others, and who exactly “others” refers to.)

godelski 7y ago
> who exactly “others” refers to Historically, people of color and political dissidents.
A4ET8a8uTh0 7y ago
Sadly, that is exactly how ideas like that promulgate. It won't affect me. It will only affect the others, the undesirables, the trouble makers, and misc. whippersnappers. I know it will not affect me and people like me, because implemented rules will ensure that. My parents lived in a society you seem to yearn for. Hard pass.
zmmmmm 7y ago
I think that's a perfectly reasonable debate to have. However that's exactly why I think they should not use deceptive language to confuse people. People need to understand exactly what is being done to have trust in it and to debate it so they can form reasonable opinions - not be deceived into thinking one thing is happening when actually something much more intrusive is going on.