39 ms·

While I generally agree with your position, this is the same unconvincing argument I've read for a long time. Even if there is a specific criminal gang that is

by jbm 2y ago

While I generally agree with your position, this is the same unconvincing argument I've read for a long time. Even if there is a specific criminal gang that is sophisticated enough to use a properly encoded open source application, the majority aren't, and there is enough of a overhead and annoyance factor that will allow the majority not to use them. If any open source application gets enough people using it, there will be plenty of opportunity for the maintainers to be bullied into submission to the state. Then the fragmentation will begin ("You need to use this branch, that branch is compromised"). If 10-20% of your full time job as a criminal is keeping your communication encrypted, that's probably a win for the government.

whatshisface 2y ago
Then the criminals will just talk in person about all the information they downloaded about us. ;-)
wholinator2 2y ago
Your assertion that criminals are idiots or lazy might hold true in the case of the high school weed dealer but i'd argue strongly against that case for the international drug trade or traffickers. The more sophisticated the crime, usually the more money, the more incentive to keep it hidden. These laws aren't written about weed dealers, they're written about traffickers. The justifications are always the high level traffickers and related peoples, the people most likely to be locked down anyways. And besides all that, let's invoke the slope, would you install a camera in your home? Even if you would, are you willing to force that upon every other person, regardless of their feelings or wishes? Sure, let's think of the children. Can we also think of the potential future regime jailing/torturing all their political opponents? Why must we always be asked to think of only one side of the harms?
vladms 2y ago
Even it would occupy them 20% of their time, the issue with such a backdoor is what it can do to non-criminals (ex: loose the backdoor to an enemy nation state that would allow spying on all citizens, or allowing some party to eliminate opposition). I always find this "war on drugs" strange, considering they are so many buyers to make it worth. Annoy/treat/educate/understand the buyers, if enough people want something you will not make it go away by reducing supply. Or make it legal and make money from it as a state...
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
sadeshmukh 2y ago
I would argue that organized crime benefits from economies of scale - and that's what they're saying this might somehow alleviate. It's really not that hard to find one OSS e2ee app that is only updated for severe security issues when you have millions flowing through.
orwin 2y ago
You don't know how organized crime families are nowadays in France. French gangs are led by 3 "families". Or rather, 3 groups of families who now are friendly with each other and divided their territory nicely and stopped fighting each other ~7 years ago. You might catch some minor gang member trice removed from the Hornec (And i've heard the Hornec are not the leading family, too exposed, so i would guess getting to the true boss is even harder), but you won't catch any leader like this.

by jbm 2y ago

whatshisface 2y ago

Then the criminals will just talk in person about all the information they downloaded about us. ;-)

wholinator2 2y ago

Your assertion that criminals are idiots or lazy might hold true in the case of the high school weed dealer but i'd argue strongly against that case for the international drug trade or traffickers. The more sophisticated the crime, usually the more money, the more incentive to keep it hidden. These laws aren't written about weed dealers, they're written about traffickers. The justifications are always the high level traffickers and related peoples, the people most likely to be locked down anyways. And besides all that, let's invoke the slope, would you install a camera in your home? Even if you would, are you willing to force that upon every other person, regardless of their feelings or wishes? Sure, let's think of the children. Can we also think of the potential future regime jailing/torturing all their political opponents? Why must we always be asked to think of only one side of the harms?

vladms 2y ago

Even it would occupy them 20% of their time, the issue with such a backdoor is what it can do to non-criminals (ex: loose the backdoor to an enemy nation state that would allow spying on all citizens, or allowing some party to eliminate opposition). I always find this "war on drugs" strange, considering they are so many buyers to make it worth. Annoy/treat/educate/understand the buyers, if enough people want something you will not make it go away by reducing supply. Or make it legal and make money from it as a state...

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

sadeshmukh 2y ago

I would argue that organized crime benefits from economies of scale - and that's what they're saying this might somehow alleviate. It's really not that hard to find one OSS e2ee app that is only updated for severe security issues when you have millions flowing through.

orwin 2y ago

You don't know how organized crime families are nowadays in France. French gangs are led by 3 "families". Or rather, 3 groups of families who now are friendly with each other and divided their territory nicely and stopped fighting each other ~7 years ago. You might catch some minor gang member trice removed from the Hornec (And i've heard the Hornec are not the leading family, too exposed, so i would guess getting to the true boss is even harder), but you won't catch any leader like this.