4 ms·
> "I understand there are people who really need it in some countries, but in this country, we're subject to the rule of law, and if you're doing nothing wrong,
by olliej 2y ago
> "I understand there are people who really need it in some countries, but in this country, we're subject to the rule of law, and if you're doing nothing wrong, you've got privacy because no one's looking at it,"
JFC. Those countries also consider themselves to have the "rule of law", and if you can require that people have no right to privacy so can they.
But also, when the backdoor you require leaks or otherwise causes wide spread losses, are you willing to pick up the tab?
- BLKNSLVR 2y agoIt is an interesting data point in understanding Burgess' world-view that he phrases it like that: "but in this country, we're subject to the rule of law". It's an incredibly superior thing to say, effectively: It's OK, we're the good guys. He's really presenting no comprehension (or admission) of any possible downside. Even if they are the good guys, bad shit is more likely to happen when you think you're a knight in shining armour that can do no wrong.
- autoexec 2y agoHe says "in this country, we're subject to the rule of law" but that would automatically mean that they don't get access to encrypted content, instead what he means is "in this country, we will strong-arm corporations into letting us violate people's rights and if that doesn't work we will rewrite laws so we can do whatever we want anyway" which tells you just how much "rule of law" means for those in power.