2 ms·

I did not mean to and perhaps not being a native English speaker affected how I interpreted it. Sorry if I offended you here. I do still think that entities (e

by WJW 5y ago

I did not mean to and perhaps not being a native English speaker affected how I interpreted it. Sorry if I offended you here. I do still think that entities (especially nation-states) which want to surveil dissidents will not be overly hindered by their technical expertise or lack thereof. If anything, I expect that the presence of high-profile politicians on the list will finally spur some serious research into defensive measures. Proliferation of offense begets proliferation of defense in a mouse-and-cat game after all.

varjag 5y ago
Unlike oldschool surveillance methods these provide a high degree of automation. This allows for qualitatively different surveillance state than was possible with a bunch of Stasi guys in trenchcoats. It also isn't held back by borders or jurisdictions. It's not much of cat and mouse game either: neither Apple or Google appear to be able countering the threat but worse it's not them who are the targets. It's the individuals/dissidents who are (short of ceasing electronic communication) utterly helpless here.