3 ms·

> to give government agencies control over one more aspect of life to make things better. Often but not always, it's not a tradeoff between government having c

• roenxi 3y ago
  > ...that is in many ways democratically accountable... But in this case, the plan is to remove encryption so that officials can monitor everyone's messaging. And it has to be all mail, otherwise fairly obviously the horrible people will go use secure communication. So them being democratically accountable appears to mean they can just poke their nose into whatever they like and there isn't anything much voters can do about it. Using taxpayer money to enforce everything I might add. Some random rich guy couldn't do this. He can't force anyone to divulge their mail, and he can't force the people being targeted to fund it. And this idea of democratic accountability is a bit sus. The Nazi's were the plurality party when they took over (as far as I recall, anyway), the Communists were popular enough to win a war when they took over China. Popular support for a terrible idea doesn't change the nature of the idea, we're much better off with actual technical protections to give everyone time to figure out they're making terrible mistakes.