3 ms·
> Imagine we're sitting at a bar, chatting. None of us have anything to hide. Then the government passes a law that all conversations must be streamed on Youtub
by RcouF1uZ4gsC 6y ago
> Imagine we're sitting at a bar, chatting. None of us have anything to hide. Then the government passes a law that all conversations must be streamed on Youtube Live, so an agent comes in, sets up a camera at our table, and starts streaming.
If we are doing imaginary situations, the proponents of this bill can also do something like this:
Imagine there is a bar, where the police are unable to go inside. Every day, people go into the bar to plan terror attacks or to spread hate and racism. They can have whoever from across the world join them in the private bar without the police being able to find out. Sometimes they also bring young children into the bar to sexually exploit them. Other times, they bring vulnerable young men and indoctrinate them with their racist hate. The owner of the bar knows that those kinds of things are happening, but they say, a lot of people just come into the bar to talk with friends, so we never allow the police to come. In addition, before serving drinks, the owner puts on a blindfold and stuffs their ears with cotton so they won't be able to see or hear what is going on. They live by the principle: See no evil, hear no evil. The owner of the bar is making a lot of money from the people using the bar.
Don't you think we should keep the terrorists, and neo-Nazis, and child molesters from having a bar that they can go to to do and plan their evil stuff that police cannot get to? Don't you think that the bar owners, instead of stuffing their ears and covering their eyes so they are unable to see the bad stuff, should make sure that bad people aren't using their bar for evil stuff. Sure, just like in the real world, you will have your privacy just like you have in your home or at the local bar. But, you would want a real life bar owner to not close their eyes to people using their bar as a planning ground for terrorism, or who are bringing young kids with fake id's to the bar to exploit them, or who are filling young men's minds with hateful, racist lies? Also, just like the police can get a search warrant for a bad person's home or a bar where a lot of bad people are congregating and planning and doing bad things, we think they should also be allowed to do that in the online world.
Now tell me, to the average non-tech voter, which will pull the most emotional strings?
- lazyasciiart 6y agoSo now, the terrorists and child molesters still use the bar, but they always go into the bathroom to talk. The owner suspects that they are talking about bad things in there, and installs surveillance cameras so that if the police ever need to know what's happening in there, they have access. Would you want a real life bar owner to record you on the toilet just so that one day the police can track some bad guys easily? Probably not. Do you think it's reasonable to expect privacy on the toilet even when you're in a bar owned by someone else? Yes, even if it might one day make law enforcement a little harder. And just like we think that people have a reasonable expectation of privacy when using places intended for that in the real world, we think they should also have it online.
- RcouF1uZ4gsC 6y agoWhat analogy does a bathroom have to a messenger app?
- Faint 6y agoAn open source messaging app that actually does end-to-end encryption regardless of whatever law? It might be less convenient to use, but people who feel they need to encrypt their stuff, will be able to do it anyway. So the end result will be just less privacy for people who "have nothing to hide".
- lazyasciiart 6y agoPeople use both of them when they want to do something in privacy, instead of sharing it with the whole world. If you invent a message app that tells everyone it posts every message to a publicly visible website, then I'd agree that people using it aren't expecting privacy. I don't see it catching on though.
- pdonis 6y ago> just like the police can get a search warrant for a bad person's home or a bar where a lot of bad people are congregating and planning and doing bad things, we think they should also be allowed to do that in the online world. Bad analogy, because a search warrant for one bad person's home or bar does not require the government to have keys to everyone's home and bar, just in case they need to search it. In other words, the problem is not the "get a search warrant" part. It's the "break strong encryption so no one's data is secure, just in case we need to search anyone's data" part.
- suizi 6y agoFilling someone's head with hateful, racist lies is 100% legal so it would not be applicable to the proponents of the bill. Terrorism is another beast. You will find a lot more people than you would like in a lot of communities are racist. I do not approve of it but preventing it would enter the realm of thought policing and would require a totalitarian police state.