5 ms·

> They need to understand that this miracle they want does not exist, too! > I just feel like you complain about the fact that I split my argument in 3 points

> They need to understand that this miracle they want does not exist, too! > I just feel like you complain about the fact that I split my argument in 3 points and would rather have it stand on one point :-). Which is your point 2). :-) As succinctly as I can: I think my argument now is that 1), redefined by you (or reunderstood by me) during our conversations is not worth making. Initially in my original post I interpreted 1) to mean that "since E2EE is used by 80+% of people today, it can't be made illegal" which I argued against (because I think this is false). Then you expanded upon it / I understood better to be "the technology exists, it can't be made to disappear", which I agree with - but think is a meaningless or naive way to look at legislation. Australia e.g famously enforced strict gun laws in the late 90's, telling legislators then "the first thing you need to understand is that guns will still exist" is true in a meaningless way that doesn't convey anything. I think a reason why I felt the need to argue about this is that I think a lot of techies / HN people have a very black-and-white view on the legislative process, "if it's still technically possible it's not worth/possible to outlaw". Not saying you fall into this category though!

palata 2y ago
Got it, now I understand. I agree that it is trivial, but I don't think it is meaningless. > telling legislators then "the first thing you need to understand is that guns will still exist" is true in a meaningless way that doesn't convey anything I disagree: if the legislators vote those laws and then tell the police and the military that criminals will never have guns again, then I think it would be worth letting them know that guns will still exist. Again: trivial, but not meaningless. > "if it's still technically possible it's not worth/possible to outlaw" Right, I understand your point here, and that's not what I meant. I just meant that some politicians sound like they believe that people have to go to a specialized store and present an ID to get access to E2EE. And with this vision of the world, I understand that they may consider the benefits of "enforcing strict E2EE laws". But that's not how it works (and in that sense it's pretty different from guns), and they need to understand it.

palata 2y ago

Got it, now I understand. I agree that it is trivial, but I don't think it is meaningless. > telling legislators then "the first thing you need to understand is that guns will still exist" is true in a meaningless way that doesn't convey anything I disagree: if the legislators vote those laws and then tell the police and the military that criminals will never have guns again, then I think it would be worth letting them know that guns will still exist. Again: trivial, but not meaningless. > "if it's still technically possible it's not worth/possible to outlaw" Right, I understand your point here, and that's not what I meant. I just meant that some politicians sound like they believe that people have to go to a specialized store and present an ID to get access to E2EE. And with this vision of the world, I understand that they may consider the benefits of "enforcing strict E2EE laws". But that's not how it works (and in that sense it's pretty different from guns), and they need to understand it.