4 ms·

It's silly how privacy detractors try to associate so-and-so terrible group with any software that simply lets people talk without corporate or government surve

It's silly how privacy detractors try to associate so-and-so terrible group with any software that simply lets people talk without corporate or government surveillance, as if the concept of a private conversation is a strange and suspicious thing now.

AlexandrB 2y ago
To play devil's advocate: private face-to-face conversations do not allow for effective coordination of actions across large distances. There are plenty of good arguments for keeping the government out of everyone's private messages, but this kind of messaging and a conversation are not the same thing.
- big-green-man 2y ago
  Yes, they do, it just takes longer to enact what was coordinated. There's no fundamental difference between a conversation in a meadow and one online.
  - jgwil2 2y ago
    Sometimes quantity has a quality all of its own. The difference is in the number of people who can be involved and the distances that can be conquered, but those differences completely change the possibilities of online speech.
    - big-green-man 2y ago
      But there's nothing fundamental about that distinction that warrants a separate set of societal rules. It's just scale: more people, farther distance, shorter time frames.
  - janderland 2y ago
    This is not true. We’ve all observed how differently people behave online. The anonymity aspect creates different social outcomes. While there are arguments for preserving encryption, acting like online communication is the same as face to face is disingenuous.
    - big-green-man 2y ago
      We are talking specifically with regard to private communication between people, not speaker's corner online, that's a separate discussion, although I'd have similar views on that topic as well. It's not the same. But it's not fundamentally different, it's just the technology makes it such that meeting up with someone to talk, no matter where they are, is trivial. It's like a pulley.
  - croes 2y ago
    Then where is the problem? Let‘s get rid of the online tools and go back to the meadows.
    - big-green-man 2y ago
      I never said there was a problem with anything.
- BLKNSLVR 2y ago
  Aware that I'm reacting to someone playing devil's advocate... > private face-to-face conversations do not allow for effective coordination of actions across large distances. <snip> this kind of messaging and a conversation are not the same thing. Technology allows it. The same way it allows for myriad other applications that technology has made possible via extension of a base capability. I would argue that the technological ability extend 'topic X' makes it close enough to "the same thing". If a Government has a problem with an app because it allows private conversation between physically distant individuals, then that Government likely also has a problem with private conversations between non-physically distant individuals. They just won't mention that because it's transparently obviously authoritarian. The 'technology' angle only has political play because there will always be a core contingent of society that is scared enough of technology to have a much louder voice than their numbers would indicate.
  - em-bee 2y ago
    exactly, technology changes our social life. many things that used to only be possible when people were at the same location, are now possible over the distance. this not only affects how we interact but also who we interact with. in the past i could only have friends where i lived. now i have friends all over the world. why should the communication with those distant friends be any less private than the communication with my friends at home?
- Brian_K_White 2y ago
  Just as the governments power to violate anyones privacy when needed was previously tolerable only because it was physically limited. ie warrants and wire taps and physically breaking in to buildings and safes could be done to anyone at any time, but not everyone, at the same time, all the time, from afar, without even being seen. It's disingenuous to rationalize or excuse one without acknowledging the other. And even the old form of the right and ability to break in to any safe still didn't magically un-burn a paper, so that argument against encryption was never valid. Devils advocate is a critical role, but in this case it only serves the valuable role of showing that no matter how hard one tries, there is no validity to authoritarian/statist attacks on encryption, or indeed any self-actualized tech.
emodendroket 2y ago
I think in principle most people agree that it's appropriate under some limited circumstances for authorities to listen in to private conversations, given well-founded suspicion of illegal activities taking place, so digital tools making that outright impossible do pose a problem most people find a bit uncomfortable, whether or not they feel the benefits outweigh the downsides.
- axus 2y ago
  You allow limited circumstances, and then they build MYSTIC to record every phone call in the country illegally.
- hulitu 2y ago
  > I think in principle most people agree that it's appropriate under some limited circumstances for authorities to listen in to private conversations, given well-founded suspicion of illegal activities taking place, You're right. You know where the most illegal activities take place ? In the parliament. Can we listen to the private conversations of our representatives ? /s
  - emodendroket 2y ago
    Ha ha ha. Would you like to say something more substantive?
- Gud 2y ago
  The tools don’t make it “impossible” though, they just don’t actively assist. The cops are free to get a warrant and use whatever tools they have in their arsenal.
  - emodendroket 2y ago
    Traditionally the tools they have in their arsenal include the cooperation of communications providers.
- em-bee 2y ago
  not at all. as our social life makes more and more use of digital communication, it must have the same protections as a face to face conversation in my home. in germany wiretapping is only allowed for serious crimes and home surveillance is even more restricted. in other words if digital communication gets the same protection as home surveillance then you can just use that home surveillance or try to install a listening tool on the persons phone. if home surveillance is not possible then why should digital surveillance be any easier?
krunck 2y ago
They just keep coming back: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_of_the_Infocalypse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_of_the_Infocalyp...

AlexandrB 2y ago

To play devil's advocate: private face-to-face conversations do not allow for effective coordination of actions across large distances. There are plenty of good arguments for keeping the government out of everyone's private messages, but this kind of messaging and a conversation are not the same thing.

big-green-man 2y ago
Yes, they do, it just takes longer to enact what was coordinated. There's no fundamental difference between a conversation in a meadow and one online.
- jgwil2 2y ago
  Sometimes quantity has a quality all of its own. The difference is in the number of people who can be involved and the distances that can be conquered, but those differences completely change the possibilities of online speech.
  - big-green-man 2y ago
    But there's nothing fundamental about that distinction that warrants a separate set of societal rules. It's just scale: more people, farther distance, shorter time frames.
- janderland 2y ago
  This is not true. We’ve all observed how differently people behave online. The anonymity aspect creates different social outcomes. While there are arguments for preserving encryption, acting like online communication is the same as face to face is disingenuous.
  - big-green-man 2y ago
    We are talking specifically with regard to private communication between people, not speaker's corner online, that's a separate discussion, although I'd have similar views on that topic as well. It's not the same. But it's not fundamentally different, it's just the technology makes it such that meeting up with someone to talk, no matter where they are, is trivial. It's like a pulley.
- croes 2y ago
  Then where is the problem? Let‘s get rid of the online tools and go back to the meadows.
  - big-green-man 2y ago
    I never said there was a problem with anything.
BLKNSLVR 2y ago
Aware that I'm reacting to someone playing devil's advocate... > private face-to-face conversations do not allow for effective coordination of actions across large distances. <snip> this kind of messaging and a conversation are not the same thing. Technology allows it. The same way it allows for myriad other applications that technology has made possible via extension of a base capability. I would argue that the technological ability extend 'topic X' makes it close enough to "the same thing". If a Government has a problem with an app because it allows private conversation between physically distant individuals, then that Government likely also has a problem with private conversations between non-physically distant individuals. They just won't mention that because it's transparently obviously authoritarian. The 'technology' angle only has political play because there will always be a core contingent of society that is scared enough of technology to have a much louder voice than their numbers would indicate.
- em-bee 2y ago
  exactly, technology changes our social life. many things that used to only be possible when people were at the same location, are now possible over the distance. this not only affects how we interact but also who we interact with. in the past i could only have friends where i lived. now i have friends all over the world. why should the communication with those distant friends be any less private than the communication with my friends at home?
Brian_K_White 2y ago
Just as the governments power to violate anyones privacy when needed was previously tolerable only because it was physically limited. ie warrants and wire taps and physically breaking in to buildings and safes could be done to anyone at any time, but not everyone, at the same time, all the time, from afar, without even being seen. It's disingenuous to rationalize or excuse one without acknowledging the other. And even the old form of the right and ability to break in to any safe still didn't magically un-burn a paper, so that argument against encryption was never valid. Devils advocate is a critical role, but in this case it only serves the valuable role of showing that no matter how hard one tries, there is no validity to authoritarian/statist attacks on encryption, or indeed any self-actualized tech.

emodendroket 2y ago

I think in principle most people agree that it's appropriate under some limited circumstances for authorities to listen in to private conversations, given well-founded suspicion of illegal activities taking place, so digital tools making that outright impossible do pose a problem most people find a bit uncomfortable, whether or not they feel the benefits outweigh the downsides.

axus 2y ago
You allow limited circumstances, and then they build MYSTIC to record every phone call in the country illegally.
hulitu 2y ago
> I think in principle most people agree that it's appropriate under some limited circumstances for authorities to listen in to private conversations, given well-founded suspicion of illegal activities taking place, You're right. You know where the most illegal activities take place ? In the parliament. Can we listen to the private conversations of our representatives ? /s
- emodendroket 2y ago
  Ha ha ha. Would you like to say something more substantive?
Gud 2y ago
The tools don’t make it “impossible” though, they just don’t actively assist. The cops are free to get a warrant and use whatever tools they have in their arsenal.
- emodendroket 2y ago
  Traditionally the tools they have in their arsenal include the cooperation of communications providers.
em-bee 2y ago
not at all. as our social life makes more and more use of digital communication, it must have the same protections as a face to face conversation in my home. in germany wiretapping is only allowed for serious crimes and home surveillance is even more restricted. in other words if digital communication gets the same protection as home surveillance then you can just use that home surveillance or try to install a listening tool on the persons phone. if home surveillance is not possible then why should digital surveillance be any easier?

krunck 2y ago

They just keep coming back: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_of_the_Infocalypse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_of_the_Infocalyp...