3 ms·
I think you’re being sarcastic but I’m actually not sure.
by DavidSJ 6y ago
I think you’re being sarcastic but I’m actually not sure.
- StavrosK 6y agoI am not, do you consider legal wiretaps bad?
- DavidSJ 6y agoNot generally, but there shouldn’t be government microphones preemptively planted in everyone’s home, Stasi style, just waiting for a warrant either. It’s one thing to have the ability to wiretap selectively and with some cost which makes it prohibitive to do on a massive scale; it’s another thing to require vendors and service providers to deliberately sabotage their customers’ products for them. I mean there’s just potential for rampant abuse here. What of the right of political dissidents or other persecuted minorities to communicate safely? What of the possibility that this could be used to target a politician’s political adversaries (the way we see frequent mention of today)? There’s a whole history of abuse here, in the US and across the world, and there’s no need to facilitate the potential for such abuse on a scale we’ve never seen before.
- MeinBlutIstBlau 6y agoWiretaps are normally implemented for a singular specific purpose by specific entities. Not run of the mill average everyday programmers.
- StavrosK 6y agoSo exactly like the proposed law then.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- MeinBlutIstBlau 6y agoI guess I should've reread that. I think it's fine for large companies because they can afford to do it. It's just the small ones that I'd find it egregious.
- gruez 6y agoNo, but wiretaps typically have scalability problems that prevent their widespread use. There's a high marginal cost (labor + equipment) with physical wiretaps, but with digital wiretaps the marginal cost is effectively zero.
- Zak 6y agoA wiretap by compromising a specific device using an exploit after obtaining a court order is also likely fairly high-effort.