4 ms·

Government’s attack on its own citizens are getting to a ridiculous level, this ban against encryption is obviously disliked by 99% of the population and will a

Government’s attack on its own citizens are getting to a ridiculous level, this ban against encryption is obviously disliked by 99% of the population and will affect them adversely. Government is showing that they don’t care about well being of their citizens by continuously pursuing these type of proposals. I think people in society should drop the civil contract all together, obviously government has devolved into a tribal state where they do everything in their might to protect a select few, hence people will need to drop their contract with the current one and build a new one.

simonh 6y ago
You're going to find it difficult to engage with the other side in a debate if you have absolutely no idea why the disagree with you. Or worse completely misunderstand their reasoning. The purpose of these intrusions on E2E encryption is to fight crime and terrorism. It is misconceived and counterproductive, yes, but these people really don't intend to attack citizens in general. They're just woefully ill informed. The way to fight this is to inform them.
- smeej 6y ago
  I miss the time in my life where I could still believe this. The overwhelming majority of people in prison, who have had existing laws enforced against them aren't violent, even though that's what the laws they "broke" claimed to be trying to prevent when they were passed too. "Crime" is in the eye of the powerful. "Stopping criminals" sounds fine until you realize who they consider "criminals" and how capricious that is.
smeej 6y ago
I'd take this a step further: Let's stop pretending there's some sort of "contract" in the first place. If you weren't told the terms, if you weren't given the option to negotiate, if you weren't even informed that you were party to the contract until after you were ostensibly bound to it, it isn't a contract. It's a diktat. You are subject to it, not party to it. Consent matters. Always and everywhere, consent matters. It doesn't just matter in the abstract. It matters in each particular. Consenting to chip in to build a road shouldn't be assumed to be consent to chip in to start a war. There is no "social contract." There's just subjection of people to power.
Nasrudith 6y ago
It is worse than an attack on their own citizens - it is an attack on their own citizens best described as "nationally suicidal" - their finance systems depend upon end to end encryptions and they depend upon them for funding which keeps them afloat. These are complete fucking morons who would be the dog who not only caught the car but a nuclear waste truck.

simonh 6y ago

You're going to find it difficult to engage with the other side in a debate if you have absolutely no idea why the disagree with you. Or worse completely misunderstand their reasoning. The purpose of these intrusions on E2E encryption is to fight crime and terrorism. It is misconceived and counterproductive, yes, but these people really don't intend to attack citizens in general. They're just woefully ill informed. The way to fight this is to inform them.

smeej 6y ago
I miss the time in my life where I could still believe this. The overwhelming majority of people in prison, who have had existing laws enforced against them aren't violent, even though that's what the laws they "broke" claimed to be trying to prevent when they were passed too. "Crime" is in the eye of the powerful. "Stopping criminals" sounds fine until you realize who they consider "criminals" and how capricious that is.

smeej 6y ago

I'd take this a step further: Let's stop pretending there's some sort of "contract" in the first place. If you weren't told the terms, if you weren't given the option to negotiate, if you weren't even informed that you were party to the contract until after you were ostensibly bound to it, it isn't a contract. It's a diktat. You are subject to it, not party to it. Consent matters. Always and everywhere, consent matters. It doesn't just matter in the abstract. It matters in each particular. Consenting to chip in to build a road shouldn't be assumed to be consent to chip in to start a war. There is no "social contract." There's just subjection of people to power.

Nasrudith 6y ago

It is worse than an attack on their own citizens - it is an attack on their own citizens best described as "nationally suicidal" - their finance systems depend upon end to end encryptions and they depend upon them for funding which keeps them afloat. These are complete fucking morons who would be the dog who not only caught the car but a nuclear waste truck.