4 ms·

Yes, we should be willing to accept a certain level of crime if it means privacy and security for hundreds of millions of regular people. Even more so when thei

Yes, we should be willing to accept a certain level of crime if it means privacy and security for hundreds of millions of regular people. Even more so when their cure is worse than the disease.

bluGill 1y ago
Note that other threads in this post have said "with a warrant" which is different from general lack of privacy. These are things we need to debate as a society and it means understanding details not making two sentences on a discussion board with less than 15 minutes of thought... (I of course have no idea how much thought you may have put into this before this topic came up, I only see the time stamps on our comments... This is why I hate debates - you don't have time to make a well thought response to something new and so you can lose to a bad idea if you don't come up with the right counter)
- baobun 1y ago
  > Note that other threads in this post have said "with a warrant" I think there's some confusion and people talking past each other there. With a warrant, LE can extract messages from devices, request and receive data dumps from service providers, and attempt to crack encrypted data. In many places they can also insert backdoors (server or client side) with a warrant. We see some people pointing this out as being sufficient. This is different from every device and citizen (except politicians) preemtively having their devices backdoored with access granted after a warrant (which you seem to be arguing for). Most of us agree that this is unacceptable and is already unconstitutional in several EU countries.
- raxxorraxor 1y ago
  We would need massive improvement of these mechanisms with secondary audits to even consider that. Because in reality these mechanisms are broken as well. Fixing that first is a necessary requirement. Currently there is simply no capacity for warrants to be seriously vetted. Hence they become arbitrary.

Yes, we should be willing to accept a certain level of crime if it means privacy and security for hundreds of millions of regular people. Even more so when their cure is worse than the disease.

bluGill 1y ago

Note that other threads in this post have said "with a warrant" which is different from general lack of privacy. These are things we need to debate as a society and it means understanding details not making two sentences on a discussion board with less than 15 minutes of thought... (I of course have no idea how much thought you may have put into this before this topic came up, I only see the time stamps on our comments... This is why I hate debates - you don't have time to make a well thought response to something new and so you can lose to a bad idea if you don't come up with the right counter)

baobun 1y ago
> Note that other threads in this post have said "with a warrant" I think there's some confusion and people talking past each other there. With a warrant, LE can extract messages from devices, request and receive data dumps from service providers, and attempt to crack encrypted data. In many places they can also insert backdoors (server or client side) with a warrant. We see some people pointing this out as being sufficient. This is different from every device and citizen (except politicians) preemtively having their devices backdoored with access granted after a warrant (which you seem to be arguing for). Most of us agree that this is unacceptable and is already unconstitutional in several EU countries.
raxxorraxor 1y ago
We would need massive improvement of these mechanisms with secondary audits to even consider that. Because in reality these mechanisms are broken as well. Fixing that first is a necessary requirement. Currently there is simply no capacity for warrants to be seriously vetted. Hence they become arbitrary.