3 ms·
>>* Someone stole my money. * But they used a privacy enhancing service to hide it. * So the authorities have no recourse. The resourse can't be * ban the pri
by ETH_start 4y ago
>>* Someone stole my money. * But they used a privacy enhancing service to hide it. * So the authorities have no recourse.
The resourse can't be
* ban the privacy enhancing service
If cash were introduced today, it would be banned under that principle.
Real privacy means criminals will use it. That's the price society pays to not give the government enormous surveillance powers.
- r00fus 4y agoThis is ridiculous. The reality of the situation is that the law does make a distinction between activities/venues/products that have a significant non-criminal usage (cash/retail stores/hammers) vs. ones that have mostly criminal usage (mixers/crackhouses/lockpicks).
- ETH_start 4y agoThe only reason cash has significant non-criminal usage is that it has had time to gain a foothold in society. If all communication apps had a backdoor for government surveillance, and one was introduced with E2E encryption, at first, criminals would disproportionaly flock to it, and you could very well argue for it to be banned under the principle you espouse. Thus you would strangle every privacy solution in its cradle before it has had a chance to become mainstream.