4 ms·

Thank you, and I see it's registered in the UK. I think it started in the US? Well, not like it's relevant anymore. And can you answer this question: If everyon

by nxor 1y ago

Thank you, and I see it's registered in the UK. I think it started in the US? Well, not like it's relevant anymore. And can you answer this question: If everyone has secure chat, then won't that benefit criminal organizations? I struggle to understand the love for private communication when it seems like that would benefit, for example, religious sects and sex abuse rings. NOT that I like that Zuckerborg keeping all my messages.

dijit 1y ago
> If everyone has secure chat, then won't that benefit criminal organizations? I struggle to understand the love for private communication when it seems like that would benefit, for example, religious sects and sex abuse rings. NOT that I like that Zuckerborg keeping all my messages. Yes, sort of. The thing is, the government is already not permitted to wiretap people, at least without reasonable suspicion. Wiretaps themselves are not admissible in court, and can only be offered as a mechanism to correlate behaviour anyway. At least in the UK. (Which, is ironic when you consider what's going on there with online speech, but I digress). Factually speaking, in order to do a crime you have to physically do a crime, the police knowing when and where do not require access to your communications to figure out. They will sting people, get people to turn on other people or simply catch red-handed when doing ordinary police work. If we legitimately believe what the governments of the world are saying: that we need to embolden the police. Then funding them properly is the right start, yet nobody seems to be doing that. The EU has been making cross border communication easier though, which is in-line with emboldening the police, so I'll give them that. Having more information will do very little to help, for the same reason that phone taps aren't given out freely (and never have been) - because even if you have the data, you have to choose how to act on it, and you'd need the resources to investigate and follow-through. There is a distinct irony that unencrypted SMS is more secure than online messengers, because there are legal protections.
- nxor 1y ago
  Funding police outweighs the benefit organized crime may get from communicating securely ?
  - dijit 1y ago
    Very much so.
  - jcynix 1y ago
    So you think that if normal people aren't allowed to use encryption that would hinder organized crime to use encryption? :-0
    - nxor 1y ago
      Are you European? I don't understand that use of hinder. You mean prevent from using? Then no, I don't think preventing normal people from using encryption will prevent criminals from using encryption, and didn't mean to imply that I'm not referring to hinder meaning prevent, I'm referring to how "hinder someone to use" is not grammatical. https://www.merriam-webster.com/sentences/hinder https://www.merriam-webster.com/sentences/hinder
      - jcynix 1y ago
        To "hinder" means to make it more difficult to use something, or "to restrict" or "to prevent" someone from using it. https://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/hinder https://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/hinder
detaro 1y ago
Freedoms tend to also benefit criminals, yes. That's kind of unavoidable.
- nxor 1y ago
  Then crime will increase
  - fsflover 1y ago
    See also: https://support.torproject.org/abuse/#abuse_what-about-criminals https://support.torproject.org/abuse/#abuse_what-about-crimi...
bigstrat2003 1y ago
> If everyone has secure chat, then won't that benefit criminal organizations? Probably. But criminal organizations also benefit from having electricity, or cars, or a million other things that we all would be much worse off if we didn't have them. Just because something benefits criminal organizations as a side effect is not really a reason to not do it for the benefit of ordinary citizens.
- nxor 1y ago
  My point wasn't that we should or shouldn't have it. I just get the impression that the same people calling for privacy will be highly outraged the next time, for example, an Austin Wolf (gay porn 'star' who used Telegram to share thousands of files showing abuse of children) situation arises, or it's inevitably revealed that religious sect xyz coordinated over it. Europeans trash talk Telegram (and that is fine), but somehow Matrix is different? How?
  - bigstrat2003 1y ago
    Oh I don't think it's different at all in that respect. I think that many people are very ignorant about the inherent double-edged sword that is freedom, and think that it's possible to deny it to only bad people. On top of that, many people don't particularly value private communications, considering it to be a theoretical issue that doesn't affect them. So yeah there will certainly be outrage in cases like you mentioned.
  - heinrich5991 1y ago
    Telegram isn't end-to-end encrypted btw, so when law enforcement asks for data, Telegram actually has it.
    - nxor 1y ago
      Oh, I did know that. Other than that, I don't know much more

by nxor 1y ago

dijit 1y ago

> If everyone has secure chat, then won't that benefit criminal organizations? I struggle to understand the love for private communication when it seems like that would benefit, for example, religious sects and sex abuse rings. NOT that I like that Zuckerborg keeping all my messages. Yes, sort of. The thing is, the government is already not permitted to wiretap people, at least without reasonable suspicion. Wiretaps themselves are not admissible in court, and can only be offered as a mechanism to correlate behaviour anyway. At least in the UK. (Which, is ironic when you consider what's going on there with online speech, but I digress). Factually speaking, in order to do a crime you have to physically do a crime, the police knowing when and where do not require access to your communications to figure out. They will sting people, get people to turn on other people or simply catch red-handed when doing ordinary police work. If we legitimately believe what the governments of the world are saying: that we need to embolden the police. Then funding them properly is the right start, yet nobody seems to be doing that. The EU has been making cross border communication easier though, which is in-line with emboldening the police, so I'll give them that. Having more information will do very little to help, for the same reason that phone taps aren't given out freely (and never have been) - because even if you have the data, you have to choose how to act on it, and you'd need the resources to investigate and follow-through. There is a distinct irony that unencrypted SMS is more secure than online messengers, because there are legal protections.

nxor 1y ago
Funding police outweighs the benefit organized crime may get from communicating securely ?
- dijit 1y ago
  Very much so.
- jcynix 1y ago
  So you think that if normal people aren't allowed to use encryption that would hinder organized crime to use encryption? :-0
  - nxor 1y ago
    Are you European? I don't understand that use of hinder. You mean prevent from using? Then no, I don't think preventing normal people from using encryption will prevent criminals from using encryption, and didn't mean to imply that I'm not referring to hinder meaning prevent, I'm referring to how "hinder someone to use" is not grammatical. https://www.merriam-webster.com/sentences/hinder https://www.merriam-webster.com/sentences/hinder
    - jcynix 1y ago
      To "hinder" means to make it more difficult to use something, or "to restrict" or "to prevent" someone from using it. https://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/hinder https://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/hinder

detaro 1y ago

Freedoms tend to also benefit criminals, yes. That's kind of unavoidable.

nxor 1y ago
Then crime will increase
- fsflover 1y ago
  See also: https://support.torproject.org/abuse/#abuse_what-about-criminals https://support.torproject.org/abuse/#abuse_what-about-crimi...

bigstrat2003 1y ago

> If everyone has secure chat, then won't that benefit criminal organizations? Probably. But criminal organizations also benefit from having electricity, or cars, or a million other things that we all would be much worse off if we didn't have them. Just because something benefits criminal organizations as a side effect is not really a reason to not do it for the benefit of ordinary citizens.

nxor 1y ago
My point wasn't that we should or shouldn't have it. I just get the impression that the same people calling for privacy will be highly outraged the next time, for example, an Austin Wolf (gay porn 'star' who used Telegram to share thousands of files showing abuse of children) situation arises, or it's inevitably revealed that religious sect xyz coordinated over it. Europeans trash talk Telegram (and that is fine), but somehow Matrix is different? How?
- bigstrat2003 1y ago
  Oh I don't think it's different at all in that respect. I think that many people are very ignorant about the inherent double-edged sword that is freedom, and think that it's possible to deny it to only bad people. On top of that, many people don't particularly value private communications, considering it to be a theoretical issue that doesn't affect them. So yeah there will certainly be outrage in cases like you mentioned.
- heinrich5991 1y ago
  Telegram isn't end-to-end encrypted btw, so when law enforcement asks for data, Telegram actually has it.
  - nxor 1y ago
    Oh, I did know that. Other than that, I don't know much more