19 ms·

The privacy movement should really distance itself from criminals it always looks sketchy when the most vocal advocates are people that just got caught doing so

The privacy movement should really distance itself from criminals it always looks sketchy when the most vocal advocates are people that just got caught doing something illegal.

teddyh 4y ago
“The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one’s time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.” — Commonly attributed to H. L. Mencken (1880-1956)
- throw457 4y ago
  Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.—In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal. – Karl Raimund Popper (28 July 1902 – 17 September 1994)
  - teddyh 4y ago
    That argument, even if correct, can be used to target any and all viewpoints. It’s just a matter of who gets to decide what is and isn’t “rational”, “deceptive” or indeed “intolerant”. Shift the definitions ever so slightly in your favor and you have an iron-clad tool to suppress, with good conscience, your adversaries, no matter which side you are on.
matheusmoreira 4y ago
Successful use by criminals is among the best possible proofs of the effectiveness of any privacy technology. If it protects even criminals, it will surely protect us. Would be even better if some government agency or military started depending on it for their covert operations.
- azinman2 4y ago
  I wonder if you would still feel that way if you ended up being the victim of said criminals. There has to be a balance, or at least recognition that encryption leads to situations never before possible.

The privacy movement should really distance itself from criminals it always looks sketchy when the most vocal advocates are people that just got caught doing something illegal.

teddyh 4y ago

“The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one’s time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.” — Commonly attributed to H. L. Mencken (1880-1956)

throw457 4y ago
Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.—In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal. – Karl Raimund Popper (28 July 1902 – 17 September 1994)
- teddyh 4y ago
  That argument, even if correct, can be used to target any and all viewpoints. It’s just a matter of who gets to decide what is and isn’t “rational”, “deceptive” or indeed “intolerant”. Shift the definitions ever so slightly in your favor and you have an iron-clad tool to suppress, with good conscience, your adversaries, no matter which side you are on.

matheusmoreira 4y ago

Successful use by criminals is among the best possible proofs of the effectiveness of any privacy technology. If it protects even criminals, it will surely protect us. Would be even better if some government agency or military started depending on it for their covert operations.

azinman2 4y ago
I wonder if you would still feel that way if you ended up being the victim of said criminals. There has to be a balance, or at least recognition that encryption leads to situations never before possible.