13 ms·

It's very simple. The powers that be just want to break encryption, but only for law enforcement use. Simple. Uggg.

• nexuist 6y ago
  One of the long term consequence of legally dismantling our Constitution (which is the US equivalent to "company values", both in terms of how often they are invoked and by how often the same people ignore them) is that it dramatically reduces our soft power on the world stage. Right now China is engaging in textbook "secret war" with Hong Kong as well as a variety of other human rights abuses. It used to be that we, the U.S., could speak up, and have dozens of allies rush to our side on the principle that we are to be trusted. Consider how shoddy the evidence for justifying Iraq was, and the fact that most countries still chose to send their troops with ours. Our word used to mean something. But now? How can we hold a higher ground than China when our own police forces use the very same tactics against our own protesters? How can we accuse the other side of building concentration camps when we have our own? Backdooring encryption is just another attack on our basic freedoms. It is crazy that at a time we should be touting our values as proof they are objectively better compared to our competitors', we are also trying to take them apart and bring us down to the same level as our competitors. It's like a vast cargo ship encountering a dinghy, and the captain tells the dinghy "you need to change your construction materials, you're shooting yourself in the foot by making poor choices" while his crewmen are hard at work drilling holes into the windows below deck.
  • pietroglyph 6y ago
    > Our word used to mean something. > But now? How can we hold a higher ground than China when our own police forces use the very same tactics against our own protesters? How can we accuse the other side of building concentration camps when we have our own? But we’ve had things like this for a long time. The police have acted like they do for generations, we had concentration camps for Japanese people during World War II, and we’ve always done a variety of other reprehensible things (propping up brutal dictators, destroying native civilizations, institutional racism of every possible flavor.) Frankly, I’m shocked that our word ever meant something.
    • redis_mlc 6y ago
      > we had concentration camps for Japanese people during World War II I study WW2, and it's important to be factual. The correct term is internment camps. Japanese-Americans usually lost their property, but the purpose was to locate them in central locations, not to re-educate or liquidate them, as our enemies did to the Allies. For that time in history, it could be argued that the decision made sense. Japanese subs did shell the US mainland, and Japanese-Americans in Hawaii did help a Japanese aircrew try to escape after Pearl Harbor. Japan planned to return to Hawaii after Midway to occupy Hawaii. I think using the term "moral high ground" is not helpful for a number of reasons. However, the US did rebuild the world economy after WW2, mostly to prevent it from becoming aligned with the Soviet Union. Most of the world's national borders are descended from WW2. As leading historian Dr. Victor Davis Hanson says, "[WW2 was German and Japanese soldiers machine-gunning unarmed civilians by the tens of millions.]"
      • throwanem 6y ago
        Victor Davis Hanson says a lot of things, including that Iraq II was a good idea - he was a minor but still fairly significant public relations voice in the neoconservative bloc that pushed that war into existence, to the enormous detriment of US interests in the Middle East and worldwide. As a classicist he's tolerable, if no more than that; in any century where the years count up instead of down, the man seems entirely at sea.
      • p_l 6y ago
        That's what concentration camp is for. To concentrate and control. There were separate death camps (sometimes combined) that involved direct train-to-killing-field pipelines, and most concentration camps involved work in horrible conditions, but that's because of further goals above relocation.
        • redis_mlc 6y ago
          Not in the US.
          • 6y ago
  • kiba 6y ago
    But now? How can we hold a higher ground than China when our own police forces use the very same tactics against our own protesters? How can we accuse the other side of building concentration camps when we have our own? It's called having protestors in the first place. China wouldn't let you hear about it, or all you get is distorted information, which means you don't know what's going on in their society.
    • beardedwizard 6y ago
      Like our protests?
      • entropicdrifter 6y ago
        Like our protests if the internet was heavily censored too
    • monocasa 6y ago
      You don't think China has protestors? They protest on a scale not seen in the US, with 2010 having 180,000 "mass incidents".
      • seppin 6y ago
        They aren't allowed, is the point. You can be disappeared for speaking against Xi. Any comparison is a false one.
        • monocasa 6y ago
          They absolutely are allowed.
          • seppin 6y ago
            OP's point is that protests happen in rural areas outside the central government's control. They are very much not allowed and usually crushed when found. > They absolutely are allowed. So you and I can go to tiananmen square tomorrow for a healthy protest and drum circle?
• Spooky23 6y ago
  It’s not that simple. They want certain concessions from tech companies and others. Ie “It would be a shame if something were to happen to your business model here.”