3 ms·
I am having a legitimately hard time wrapping my head around not being able to prosecute bank fraud because signal exists. Was it impossible before when crimina
by mattnewton 1y ago
I am having a legitimately hard time wrapping my head around not being able to prosecute bank fraud because signal exists. Was it impossible before when criminals would talk in person instead over a recorded telephone?
- ZeroConcerns 1y agoNo? But lawful intercept laws were never about "criminals [talking] in person". There's a different set of laws for that...
- rstat1 1y agoAnd we all know those laws are never abused and are absolutely only used to target criminals.
- ZeroConcerns 1y agoNo, there is definitely abuse of lawful interception. But, in a jurisdiction with a functioning rule of law, these abuses can be spotted and remedied. Doing the same for mass surveillance (such as ChatControl) or state-sponsored malware is much harder. I'm advocating against ChatControl and malware, and proposing existing lawful interception frameworks as an alternative. But, apparently it's not my day :)
- rstat1 1y agoChatControl is just lawful interception under a different name, but worse.
- awesome_dude 1y agoThere is a famous case of US Mafia meeting in rooms, or out on streets to discuss their "business activities" face to face to prevent authorities from surveilling the phone calls. The reason we know is because authorities were able to place listening devices into the rooms that they were in, or surveil them from other buildings.
- mattnewton 1y agoThis is analogous to getting a warrant to someone’s phone. (Chat control is like putting a microphone into every room in case the government wants to listen after the fact.) I’m still unconvinced that this make’s law enforcement’s job so hard that something has to give.