5 ms·

>But critics say more than 90% of its customers are criminals. They're a bit thin on the details of exactly who those critics are, which makes that statement i

>But critics say more than 90% of its customers are criminals. They're a bit thin on the details of exactly who those critics are, which makes that statement inadmissible other than for us to draw the inference that the critics are law enforcement agencies - or worse still, governments. Don't get me wrong, I'm not condoning the misuse of encrypted messaging, only pointing out the convenient straw man that's been erected here to manipulate readers' emotions in order to short-circuit their ability to think critically about what's ACTUALLY been done by the authorities.

pentaphobe 6y ago
Completely agree on all points - it also kind of buries the lead with regard to the rather cliche false equivalency Up there with [cash is used for bad things, so we should ban cash](https://www.businessinsider.com.au/why-cash-should-be-illegal-2015-3?r=US&IR=T https://www.businessinsider.com.au/why-cash-should-be-illega...)
- bobbylarrybobby 6y ago
  FYI https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/bury-the-lede-versus-lead https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/bury-the-lede-...
  - pentaphobe 6y ago
    oh wow - thanks! I'll remember this next time I'm feeling haughty about common malapropisms :-|
- buran77 6y ago
  It's the typical "think of the children" or "but the terrorists" approach. Everyone is treated like a criminal because some of them could be. Calling the users "criminals" makes it harder to defend them at first glance because the first reaction is "you're defending criminals". And attaching a number to this, even an impossible to support statistic, is meant to make the statement more believable, everyone likes nice, round numbers. Of course they hope nobody raises the not so obvious points. Even taking that statement at face value (which you definitely should not) what about the other 10% non-criminals whose privacy was violated without any reasonable cause? Where else are they using the excuse that 90% success rate is acceptable? If 90% is enough to paint everyone with the same brush, when 90% of users are not criminals why aren't the other 10% also treated as innocent too? In reality just about 100% of "critics" saying this are law enforcement agencies or governments who will violate your rights or break the law in a heartbeat if it means getting their way.
sillysaurusx 6y ago
Is it misuse? Being able to say what you want (illegal or not) without the government knowing about it is arguably one of the most advertised features of encrypted messaging. (I agree with your assessment, of course. Just curious what your personal stance is.)
- aidenn0 6y ago
  I take it as axiomatic that if I use a medium to coordinate a murder, it's a misuse of that medium. OTOH, I do not take it as axiomatic that if I use a medium to coordinate commission of a crime, it's a misuse of that medium. There are plenty of crimes that are not only perfectly fine to commit, it may even be immoral to not commit them.
  - lazide 6y ago
    If people commit murder using tools they have available, once you have enough users, it is inevitable people will use your service or medium to commit murder. It’s true to Facebook, it’s true for taxis, it’s true for screwdrivers, it’s true for hotels, it’s true for pretty much anything. Unless something has clearly been designed to cause problems this way, it’s just blaming the tool instead of the user.
    - _carbyau_ 6y ago
      This.^^ Get a group of 20 random people together and tell me there isn't a dickhead in there somewhere that will intentionally misuse things for whatever perceived advantage they can get. The problem isn't the tool. It is the humans.
    - aidenn0 6y ago
      I never once in my comment even implied that the tools should be blamed.
tzs 6y ago
Subscriptions are €2100 per year. It looks like the features it has over cheaper or free alternatives are disabling camera, GPS, and microphone, deleting messages after 30 seconds, a "panic" password that if entered causes the device to be wiped, and the app is apparently somewhat hidden so it isn't immediately apparent to someone looking at your device that you have it. I'd not at all be surprised if they had a disproportionately large number of criminals among their users. There are plenty of non-criminal uses for which you need highly secure messaging, but much fewer for which you need 30 second deletion, a panic mode, and to hide the fact that you have a secure messaging app.
- Ar-Curunir 6y ago
  activists in one regime can become criminals in another. Some of those features are useful when crossing international borders, for example.
  - inopinatus 6y ago
    Regimes that invade your devices may be closer to home than you think. Whilst a manager at AWS I was traveling frequently. Security asked me not to carry work computers or smartphones across US, UK, or PRC borders, the habit stuck.
- code_duck 6y ago
  People engaged in relationship infidelity want those features.
  - drivebycomment 6y ago
    Of course there are legitimate cases that want to use these features, but I have my serious doubt there's enough legitimate market to support such a price.
    - ARandomerDude 6y ago
      Wait...are you classifying adultery as "legitimate?"
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
Barrin92 6y ago
is that quote any more of short-circuit than using the phrases law enforcement agencies or governments as a pejorative? I mean, isn't it fairly legitimate for law enforcement agencies or governments to criticize software which facilitates crime, or stops those agencies from stopping it? People always reflexively dismiss this argument, but crime is a real issue.
- Ar-Curunir 6y ago
  Crime is arbitrarily defined. For example, in the UAE, possessing porn is a crime; would you want to go to jail if the authorities found an explicit picture on your phone? Also, LEA and govts routinely abuse their powers in the name of fighting "crime" or "terrorism" or whatever is the newest thing they can scare people with. It is only reasonable to assume malintent in their propaganda.
  - ARandomerDude 6y ago
    Just because certain behaviors aren't universally criminalized didn't mean law is arbitrary. If someone shot your family you would no doubt not think laws against homicide are arbitrary. Moreover, misuse of a thing does not invalidate the proper use of the thing, a principle which also applies to legislation and law enforcement.
    - Aerroon 6y ago
      You're running into the distinction between natural rights and legal rights. You possess certain rights because you are a human being. One of those is the right to life. You could be in a place with no recognized law, but you can be damn sure that murder would still be punished.

pentaphobe 6y ago

Completely agree on all points - it also kind of buries the lead with regard to the rather cliche false equivalency Up there with [cash is used for bad things, so we should ban cash](https://www.businessinsider.com.au/why-cash-should-be-illegal-2015-3?r=US&IR=T https://www.businessinsider.com.au/why-cash-should-be-illega...)

bobbylarrybobby 6y ago
FYI https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/bury-the-lede-versus-lead https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/bury-the-lede-...
- pentaphobe 6y ago
  oh wow - thanks! I'll remember this next time I'm feeling haughty about common malapropisms :-|
buran77 6y ago
It's the typical "think of the children" or "but the terrorists" approach. Everyone is treated like a criminal because some of them could be. Calling the users "criminals" makes it harder to defend them at first glance because the first reaction is "you're defending criminals". And attaching a number to this, even an impossible to support statistic, is meant to make the statement more believable, everyone likes nice, round numbers. Of course they hope nobody raises the not so obvious points. Even taking that statement at face value (which you definitely should not) what about the other 10% non-criminals whose privacy was violated without any reasonable cause? Where else are they using the excuse that 90% success rate is acceptable? If 90% is enough to paint everyone with the same brush, when 90% of users are not criminals why aren't the other 10% also treated as innocent too? In reality just about 100% of "critics" saying this are law enforcement agencies or governments who will violate your rights or break the law in a heartbeat if it means getting their way.

sillysaurusx 6y ago

Is it misuse? Being able to say what you want (illegal or not) without the government knowing about it is arguably one of the most advertised features of encrypted messaging. (I agree with your assessment, of course. Just curious what your personal stance is.)

aidenn0 6y ago
I take it as axiomatic that if I use a medium to coordinate a murder, it's a misuse of that medium. OTOH, I do not take it as axiomatic that if I use a medium to coordinate commission of a crime, it's a misuse of that medium. There are plenty of crimes that are not only perfectly fine to commit, it may even be immoral to not commit them.
- lazide 6y ago
  If people commit murder using tools they have available, once you have enough users, it is inevitable people will use your service or medium to commit murder. It’s true to Facebook, it’s true for taxis, it’s true for screwdrivers, it’s true for hotels, it’s true for pretty much anything. Unless something has clearly been designed to cause problems this way, it’s just blaming the tool instead of the user.
  - _carbyau_ 6y ago
    This.^^ Get a group of 20 random people together and tell me there isn't a dickhead in there somewhere that will intentionally misuse things for whatever perceived advantage they can get. The problem isn't the tool. It is the humans.
  - aidenn0 6y ago
    I never once in my comment even implied that the tools should be blamed.

tzs 6y ago

Subscriptions are €2100 per year. It looks like the features it has over cheaper or free alternatives are disabling camera, GPS, and microphone, deleting messages after 30 seconds, a "panic" password that if entered causes the device to be wiped, and the app is apparently somewhat hidden so it isn't immediately apparent to someone looking at your device that you have it. I'd not at all be surprised if they had a disproportionately large number of criminals among their users. There are plenty of non-criminal uses for which you need highly secure messaging, but much fewer for which you need 30 second deletion, a panic mode, and to hide the fact that you have a secure messaging app.

Ar-Curunir 6y ago
activists in one regime can become criminals in another. Some of those features are useful when crossing international borders, for example.
- inopinatus 6y ago
  Regimes that invade your devices may be closer to home than you think. Whilst a manager at AWS I was traveling frequently. Security asked me not to carry work computers or smartphones across US, UK, or PRC borders, the habit stuck.
code_duck 6y ago
People engaged in relationship infidelity want those features.
- drivebycomment 6y ago
  Of course there are legitimate cases that want to use these features, but I have my serious doubt there's enough legitimate market to support such a price.
  - ARandomerDude 6y ago
    Wait...are you classifying adultery as "legitimate?"

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

Barrin92 6y ago

is that quote any more of short-circuit than using the phrases law enforcement agencies or governments as a pejorative? I mean, isn't it fairly legitimate for law enforcement agencies or governments to criticize software which facilitates crime, or stops those agencies from stopping it? People always reflexively dismiss this argument, but crime is a real issue.

Ar-Curunir 6y ago
Crime is arbitrarily defined. For example, in the UAE, possessing porn is a crime; would you want to go to jail if the authorities found an explicit picture on your phone? Also, LEA and govts routinely abuse their powers in the name of fighting "crime" or "terrorism" or whatever is the newest thing they can scare people with. It is only reasonable to assume malintent in their propaganda.
- ARandomerDude 6y ago
  Just because certain behaviors aren't universally criminalized didn't mean law is arbitrary. If someone shot your family you would no doubt not think laws against homicide are arbitrary. Moreover, misuse of a thing does not invalidate the proper use of the thing, a principle which also applies to legislation and law enforcement.
  - Aerroon 6y ago
    You're running into the distinction between natural rights and legal rights. You possess certain rights because you are a human being. One of those is the right to life. You could be in a place with no recognized law, but you can be damn sure that murder would still be punished.