3 ms·

Note that they didn't provide options for "with a warrant" and "without a warrant", they only provided options for "with a warrant but only for suspected terror

by hnbad 4y ago

Note that they didn't provide options for "with a warrant" and "without a warrant", they only provided options for "with a warrant but only for suspected terrorism" and "for any serious crime but without a warrant". I suspect some users would vote for "any serious crime with a warrant" but will now vote for option 1 because they still want a warrant.

pjio 4y ago
You're right, there is no option for "serious crime but only with warrant". Option 1 is more strict in both ways. Only Terrorism (which is more serious than "just" crime) and even then only with a warrant. Option 2 is unacceptable (IMO). "serious crime" is too ambiguous and without a warrant prone to misuse.
- Sakos 4y ago
  Option 2 is clearly the "but the children!" solution which will fuck us all over.
danhor 4y ago
The first option is leading right now so that's probably correct. In general germans are pretty trusting of the justice system, so I'd expect "serious crime with warrant" to win (at least I'd vote for it).
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
archi42 4y ago
I think this is very important: The poll is intended to be able to claim that their users want as little cooperation as possible. And giving the "((1+2)/2). any serious crime but WITH a warrant" option would have undermined that, so they manipulate the poll. At least that's what I'm reading into this. Picking option #2 was my personal "f..k y.." to them for this manipulation; not that it changes anything. (I really don't want to have a company share info without a warrant, but when a court warrant is issued they should comply).
- hnbad 4y ago
  That is my reading. They want users to pick option 1 as most users likely don't want them to cooperate WITHOUT a warrant and thus option 2 creates a false dichotomy. It's worth noting that a lot of fringe extremists (but not necessarily terrorists) fled from WhatsApp to securer alternatives like Signal and Telegram, especially "COVID deniers" (which, to be clear, refers to a far-right political strategy). So blatantly ignoring warrants is probably good publicity for a vocal part of its userbase.

by hnbad 4y ago

pjio 4y ago

You're right, there is no option for "serious crime but only with warrant". Option 1 is more strict in both ways. Only Terrorism (which is more serious than "just" crime) and even then only with a warrant. Option 2 is unacceptable (IMO). "serious crime" is too ambiguous and without a warrant prone to misuse.

Sakos 4y ago
Option 2 is clearly the "but the children!" solution which will fuck us all over.

danhor 4y ago

The first option is leading right now so that's probably correct. In general germans are pretty trusting of the justice system, so I'd expect "serious crime with warrant" to win (at least I'd vote for it).

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

archi42 4y ago

I think this is very important: The poll is intended to be able to claim that their users want as little cooperation as possible. And giving the "((1+2)/2). any serious crime but WITH a warrant" option would have undermined that, so they manipulate the poll. At least that's what I'm reading into this. Picking option #2 was my personal "f..k y.." to them for this manipulation; not that it changes anything. (I really don't want to have a company share info without a warrant, but when a court warrant is issued they should comply).

hnbad 4y ago
That is my reading. They want users to pick option 1 as most users likely don't want them to cooperate WITHOUT a warrant and thus option 2 creates a false dichotomy. It's worth noting that a lot of fringe extremists (but not necessarily terrorists) fled from WhatsApp to securer alternatives like Signal and Telegram, especially "COVID deniers" (which, to be clear, refers to a far-right political strategy). So blatantly ignoring warrants is probably good publicity for a vocal part of its userbase.