4 ms·

I read that in the article and meant to scratch Signal off the list but never did. Fixed now. The idea that they could stop any criminal accessing some sort of

I read that in the article and meant to scratch Signal off the list but never did. Fixed now. The idea that they could stop any criminal accessing some sort of alternative E2EE chat incredibly easily despite this bill is really a commentary on either how pathetic their technical advisory team is, or how little they listen to said team.

iinnPP 3y ago
You mean people committing crimes will also commit a crime to commit those crimes? I never thought of that. Such clever criminals. The above statement is absurd right? I'm legitimately asking because I feel as though I must be missing something. Maybe it will stop a few folks and that is the victory? I think the new entries learning that the technology is working might be more numerous than the people who get stopped. Pedos read news don't they?
- kevincox 3y ago
  This is the reason that the IRS asks you to declare your illegal income. It can be used as a tool to make catching crimes easier. If using encrypted communication is illegal then they can just ding all of the criminals for that, or their criminal activities are harder to operate because they need to hide existence of communication from law enforcement, not only the contents. If it is legal then they have to 1. identify who is doing other crimes 2. prove those crimes. So the more crimes that criminals need to perform to get their "valuable" crimes committed the more likely it is that they get caught for something. I don't believe at all that the means justify the ends, and I think the ends in this case will be only a very minor bother for criminals. But there is some logic to this concept.
tailspin2019 3y ago
> The idea that they could stop any criminal accessing some sort of alternative E2EE chat incredibly easily despite this bill is really a commentary on either how pathetic their technical advisory team is, or how little they listen to said team. Totally agree. This is partly what makes me so frustrated with this sort of legislation, because the technical arguments and assumptions that they base a lot of their legislative discussions on don't seem to make any sense at all.
skizm 3y ago
Eh, that’s kind of like saying banning guns is pointless because criminals will still get them. Banning tools is effective even if there are “easy” workarounds, but in this case it will end up hurting law abiding citizens more than protecting them.

iinnPP 3y ago

You mean people committing crimes will also commit a crime to commit those crimes? I never thought of that. Such clever criminals. The above statement is absurd right? I'm legitimately asking because I feel as though I must be missing something. Maybe it will stop a few folks and that is the victory? I think the new entries learning that the technology is working might be more numerous than the people who get stopped. Pedos read news don't they?

kevincox 3y ago
This is the reason that the IRS asks you to declare your illegal income. It can be used as a tool to make catching crimes easier. If using encrypted communication is illegal then they can just ding all of the criminals for that, or their criminal activities are harder to operate because they need to hide existence of communication from law enforcement, not only the contents. If it is legal then they have to 1. identify who is doing other crimes 2. prove those crimes. So the more crimes that criminals need to perform to get their "valuable" crimes committed the more likely it is that they get caught for something. I don't believe at all that the means justify the ends, and I think the ends in this case will be only a very minor bother for criminals. But there is some logic to this concept.

tailspin2019 3y ago

> The idea that they could stop any criminal accessing some sort of alternative E2EE chat incredibly easily despite this bill is really a commentary on either how pathetic their technical advisory team is, or how little they listen to said team. Totally agree. This is partly what makes me so frustrated with this sort of legislation, because the technical arguments and assumptions that they base a lot of their legislative discussions on don't seem to make any sense at all.

skizm 3y ago

Eh, that’s kind of like saying banning guns is pointless because criminals will still get them. Banning tools is effective even if there are “easy” workarounds, but in this case it will end up hurting law abiding citizens more than protecting them.