3 ms·
Look at the existing cases of terrorism. All of them used unencrypted forms of communication: shared Gmail account, phone calls, even good old SMS. The issue is
by rakoo 6y ago
Look at the existing cases of terrorism. All of them used unencrypted forms of communication: shared Gmail account, phone calls, even good old SMS. The issue is not that police can't see what those people are doing, none of the perpretators are unknown; it's that they (and the judiciary branch) don't have enough resources to really tackle them.
- koonsolo 6y agoI partly agree with you. But right now, it's pretty easy to use end-to-end encrypted forms of communication, so why still use sms? Knowing the suspects and having limited resources, seems to me a argument for listening into communication, not an argument against it.
- rakoo 6y agoI'm not exactly an expert on the issue, but I could imagine that they use sms because that's the only available form of communication on an anonymous $10 dumbphone, and any computer connected to the internet can connect to a webmail. Listening to more communications is exactly a resource problem: it isn't exactly cheap to build and maintain the infrastructure to gather and analyze more. Moreover in the context of the link, while I'm not a fan of conversations being listened on by default, I certainly don't want resources be spent so that encryption can be reduced