4 ms·

>it's always a choice which you can revoke at any time. It looks like the replies to this comment misunderstand the point. It's not about one person choosing

>it's always a choice which you can revoke at any time. It looks like the replies to this comment misunderstand the point. It's not about one person choosing to make their communication public, but that there should be a record of government communication period. Have we not seen enough examples of our elected officials corruption in media that isn't encrypted? Now we want them to be able to communicate in all manner with no accountability?

dTal 7y ago
> Now we want them to be able to communicate in all manner with no accountability? I think you misunderstood my point, which was that they can always do that. You can't stop them from using Signal, if they want to do something nefarious. Hell, they can just meet in a dark alley if they want. Sure, you can make it against the rules, but we are already presupposing rule-breaking (or else we would not need oversight). So, if there's going to be some kind of disclosure system, let's make it structured and explicit. Just requesting that they use unencrypted communications, and then having some sort of unaccountable gray-hat institution (i.e. intelligence services) snoop on those communications, is a bad system.