3 ms·
Sure, but then they need to send a physical person, which is expensive and impossible to scale. Making it extremely expensive is probably good enough. (Feels
by jMyles 9mo ago
Sure, but then they need to send a physical person, which is expensive and impossible to scale. Making it extremely expensive is probably good enough.
(Feels like we have this same discussion over and over on HN.)
- deleted 9mo ago[deleted]
- direwolf20 9mo ago[dead]
- gmueckl 9mo agoI don't understand this take. There is no real way in which a private person can make law enforcement "more expensive". The government can always find means as long as it is supported by a sufficiently big fraction of its people.
- xboxnolifes 9mo ago1 person using encryption vs 1 million people using encryption.
- SauntSolaire 9mo agoSure, they won't go out and arrest all one million, but from an individual perspective it's basically security by obscurity. Once that's the case, otherwise legal activities (e.g. protesting, or making political statements) run the risk of making you a target. Law enforcement can then punish you for your legal activity by selectively enforcing this other law. The resulting situation is one where everyone knows to some extent "you better shut up if you know what's good for you", and puts a chilling effect on otherwise legal forms of civic engagement. You might point out that there are already laws on the books that let them do this, but I'm sure they wouldn't mind another.