3 ms·

Any grouping (such as nation) of individuals arises from some loss of freedom, income and privacy for the individuals. The loss of individuals or the contributi

by zkmon 2y ago

Any grouping (such as nation) of individuals arises from some loss of freedom, income and privacy for the individuals. The loss of individuals or the contribution is the element that powers the nation or a community. 100% privacy means zero privacy-related contribution towards legal enforcement. So the question is all about striking a balance between loss of privacy and the need for legal enforcement. The negotiations would continue, to arrive at the acceptable/needed level of privacy loss.

stingraycharles 2y ago
The problem in this case is that the actual criminals will just move to a more obscure, properly encrypted solution, and as such the normal population that uses Whatsapp, Telegram, Signal will be the only users being monitored.
dtquad 2y ago
In 2017 Copenhagen had a wave of gang shootings with 1-2 daily fatalities during the worst weeks. That is nothing compared to the most violent US cities but it was completely unprecedented for a Danish city. The gang warfare was stopped by massive police surveillance operations. This included military surveillance and signal intelligence planes [1] and helicopters to aid the police. It worked. I know it goes against left-libertarian talking points on HN/reddit to suggest that police and surveillance can actually stop crime but it did in 2017 in Copenhagen. Looking at the gang problems still facing Sweden I'm fine with Danish authorities going full surveillance mode back in 2017 instead of letting the gang violence grow to Swedish levels. [1]: https://www.berlingske.dk/samfund/politiet-tager-nye-vaaben-i-brug-mod-banderne-vi-goer-fund-og-fangster-fordi-vi https://www.berlingske.dk/samfund/politiet-tager-nye-vaaben-...
- SJC_Hacker 2y ago
  I don't think anyone is opposed to police surveillance at least in public areas or with some warrant. The questions are 1) proper judicial oversight in the latter case and 2) governments making it illegal for anyone to distribute more effective (assumed) privacy

by zkmon 2y ago

stingraycharles 2y ago

The problem in this case is that the actual criminals will just move to a more obscure, properly encrypted solution, and as such the normal population that uses Whatsapp, Telegram, Signal will be the only users being monitored.

dtquad 2y ago

In 2017 Copenhagen had a wave of gang shootings with 1-2 daily fatalities during the worst weeks. That is nothing compared to the most violent US cities but it was completely unprecedented for a Danish city. The gang warfare was stopped by massive police surveillance operations. This included military surveillance and signal intelligence planes [1] and helicopters to aid the police. It worked. I know it goes against left-libertarian talking points on HN/reddit to suggest that police and surveillance can actually stop crime but it did in 2017 in Copenhagen. Looking at the gang problems still facing Sweden I'm fine with Danish authorities going full surveillance mode back in 2017 instead of letting the gang violence grow to Swedish levels. [1]: https://www.berlingske.dk/samfund/politiet-tager-nye-vaaben-i-brug-mod-banderne-vi-goer-fund-og-fangster-fordi-vi https://www.berlingske.dk/samfund/politiet-tager-nye-vaaben-...

SJC_Hacker 2y ago
I don't think anyone is opposed to police surveillance at least in public areas or with some warrant. The questions are 1) proper judicial oversight in the latter case and 2) governments making it illegal for anyone to distribute more effective (assumed) privacy