2 ms·
Even if that argument somehow statistically works/worked, sometimes it should be mentioned: I would rather have some 3 terror attacks more per year, than having
by zelphirkalt 2y ago
Even if that argument somehow statistically works/worked, sometimes it should be mentioned: I would rather have some 3 terror attacks more per year, than having privacy of millions invaded and our way of living destroyed, just to prevent those 3 cases. It would be letting the actual terrorists determin how we live, what rights and privacy we are allowed to have.
- vorticalbox 2y agoTerrorists would just either add e2e over existing apps or just move to ones that support it. Criminals tend to not care about the law even making e2e illegal would do very little to stop anything.
- tzs 2y ago> I would rather have some 3 terror attacks more per year, than having privacy of millions invaded and our way of living destroyed, just to prevent those 3 cases. End to end encrypted chat for the general public has only been available for ~15 years. On the web, SSL is ~30 years old. PGP is ~35 years old. As far as I can tell people's way of living now is largely the same as it was back before any of those were around, so I don't see how it would destroy our way of living if much of that went away.
- account42 2y agoPrivate chat has been around forever. Encryption is just an implementation detail of how to bring private chat to cyberspace.