6 ms·

We have far more to fear from those that peddle fear than from those we are told to be fearful of.

• thomassmith65 4y ago
  If a technology enables criminals to coordinate without any hope of detection that seems worthy of some fear to me.
  • zirgs 4y ago
    That's the price you have to pay if you want to live in a free country.
    • thomassmith65 4y ago
      The point of the original article is that it's not black and white. There is no, and never can be any, entirely free country. I want to be free enough to have good privacy, but not so free as to allow a crime ring to take over my town.
      • DocTomoe 4y ago
        Some people say that already has happened, and the crime ring is called "the government".
        • p0pcult 4y ago
          >Some people Other people think those first people are complete nutjobs.
      • philippejara 4y ago
        if you are in a position a crime ring can take over your town, no amount of surveillance will help, it will most likely make the crime ring stronger by giving them access to it, there's a joke here about the government being already the crime ring I guess.
  • sabellito 4y ago
    Anyone can host an e2e chat solution, trying to take Signal down doesn't change anything for serious organised crime.
  • tmpburning 4y ago
    [flagged]
  • tensor 4y ago
    This has always been true. The old fashion way of doing it was called "getting together in person someplace private." Yes Signal makes it a bit easier, but also general technology makes it harder too.
  • ilyt 4y ago
    They can do that. The cat is out of the bag. Worst case they can just use GPG/PGP, S/MIME or a bunch of other ways. Backdooring a communication medium just means they won't use it in the first place.
• weakfortress 4y ago
  [flagged]
  • timbray 4y ago
    You're not allowed to drive at twice the speed limit, nor to smoke in enclosed public spaces, and, in certain pandemic situations, you shouldn't be allowed to breathe unobstructedly on strangers. Where's the privacy dimension?!
    • base698 4y ago
      What level of risk do you believe allows massive corporations to loot the government? 1 in 100,000? 1 in 10,000?
  • kelseyfrog 4y ago
    > To me, it's a binary choice. You are either for privacy or you are not. This is called black and white thinking and it's generally a intellectual dead end. Applying wanton black and white thinking is a sign of a mind incapable of nuance, and rich, deep thought.
    • spritefs 4y ago
      > Applying wanton black and white thinking is a sign of a mind incapable of nuance, and rich, deep thought. Can't think of one instance where a group was able to politically accomplish something on the basis of "nuance" If someone is making an appeal to "nuance", they're losing
      • kelseyfrog 4y ago
        Right, so what most people do when faced with a lack of knowledge is go out looking for it or maintain weakly held beliefs. To conclude that something isn't possible because one doesn't know of it is thought-limiting. This is the political version of claiming, "I don't know how to sew and I've never seen someone sew. Therefore sewing is impossible." It's stunningly wrong. I can't seriously believe someone would think this way.
• deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]