4 ms·

It took governments a while to catch up, and now they have. In the arms race between privacy and surveillance, E2E is the next shield against the weapon of mass

It took governments a while to catch up, and now they have. In the arms race between privacy and surveillance, E2E is the next shield against the weapon of mass surveillance. Governments have always had warrant requirements, until they decided they didn't need them. If you want my data, get a warrant. The US had it's own top secret database breached.. because they used a discount contractor. I choose to keep my data in higher regard. Bulk SMS/location is also a horrible failure of justice and it harms innocent people so that a few criminals may be caught. This is backwards. It is better that a criminal go unpunished than for a single innocent person to be harmed wrongfully by the government.

nopcode 5y ago
> It is better that a criminal go unpunished than for a single innocent person to be harmed wrongfully by the government. That really depends on the number of criminals and the total harm they cause to our society versus the harm caused by the government. We've been having "liberty versus security" debates for centuries and the balance is always changing.
- vorpalhex 5y ago
  Tomorrow, we decide to re-instate the death penalty for people who commit murder. Our very well trained seers (who are always right) tell us that this will reduce murder by 90%.. but 1/20 people we execute will be innocent of the crime. Do we take the bargain?
  - nopcode 5y ago
    Yes, I would take that bargain. Reducing 193 murder victims (Belgium 2017) to 19.3 victims. Assuming there's a 1:1 victim/killer ratio, that would mean ~20 executed killers of which 1 is innocent. So, "accidentally" killing 1 person to save 173 lives.
    - vorpalhex 5y ago
      Are you ok with being the sacrificial lamb?
  - 1337shadow 5y ago
    That's a really interesting ethical question. It's what the right wight asks: most immigrants are fine, but 1/20 will be radicalized, even commit terrorism acts such as mass murder, do we take the bargain? French president Francois Hollande testified in court that he knew and took the bargain, then, we had Bataclan, Samuel Paty, and so on (please don't make me do the exhaustive list). Now the question is, what would make one decide to apply whatever answer they give here, but not there? Definitely food for thought!

nopcode 5y ago

> It is better that a criminal go unpunished than for a single innocent person to be harmed wrongfully by the government. That really depends on the number of criminals and the total harm they cause to our society versus the harm caused by the government. We've been having "liberty versus security" debates for centuries and the balance is always changing.

vorpalhex 5y ago
Tomorrow, we decide to re-instate the death penalty for people who commit murder. Our very well trained seers (who are always right) tell us that this will reduce murder by 90%.. but 1/20 people we execute will be innocent of the crime. Do we take the bargain?
- nopcode 5y ago
  Yes, I would take that bargain. Reducing 193 murder victims (Belgium 2017) to 19.3 victims. Assuming there's a 1:1 victim/killer ratio, that would mean ~20 executed killers of which 1 is innocent. So, "accidentally" killing 1 person to save 173 lives.
  - vorpalhex 5y ago
    Are you ok with being the sacrificial lamb?
- 1337shadow 5y ago
  That's a really interesting ethical question. It's what the right wight asks: most immigrants are fine, but 1/20 will be radicalized, even commit terrorism acts such as mass murder, do we take the bargain? French president Francois Hollande testified in court that he knew and took the bargain, then, we had Bataclan, Samuel Paty, and so on (please don't make me do the exhaustive list). Now the question is, what would make one decide to apply whatever answer they give here, but not there? Definitely food for thought!