4 ms·
What they are even trying to achieve? A criminal can always use an e2e messaging system. Even if they ban the systems (such as Signal) that don’t employ these m
by alerighi 3y ago
What they are even trying to achieve? A criminal can always use an e2e messaging system. Even if they ban the systems (such as Signal) that don’t employ these measures, it’s just a matter of using a VPN.
The excuse of reducing crime is just… an excuse
- firtoz 3y agoSurveillance is a key to controlling the general public. It's as simple as that. It's a distraction to look at what they put on the cover or how they sell it.
- orwell_bruh 3y agoI find that people like to sooth themselves with thoughts like that. "They can never ban X", "I would just do Y". The state can absolute ban anything. It bans certain plants! This surveilance doesnt have to be 100%. Big nets catch many fish but never all. However, if you find a way to defeat this on a scale that matters like if too many people started using VPN then they'd just ban VPN, too. Goto 0.
- try_the_bass 3y agoMaking it harder to do crimes shouldn't be discouraged because some criminals will find new ways to do crimes. You're defending the ability to commit crimes because the law isn't perfect. The law _cannot_ be perfect, so no law will ever satisfy your requirement. Following this line of reasoning to it's conclusion: because all laws are imperfect, and criminals can always find ways around them, your position is that no laws should be enacted. After all, you can't have crime if nothing is criminalized, right?