3 ms·

The problem is that every statement could be a 'government conspiracy.' E.g.: The DEA can break iMessage encryption Obviously they can't, and they want you

• coldtea 14y ago
  Sure. But that's not an argument against it being possible (or actually true). I mean, in your example there are 3 cases: 1) Obviously that can't, and they want you to shy away from using iMessage! 2) Obviously they can, and they want you to keep/start using it! 3) They can't and they are frank about it. It could be either of the three. We cannot say that it can only be (3) because "(1) and (2) are conspiracies". We cannot even say that (3) is more possible because it doesn't involve a conspiracy. It depends on more information and context to decide. Some situations we know quite well that are unlikely to involve conspiracies ("Jack said he went to Spain for holidays"). Other situations, we know quite well that are more likely to involve conspiracies ("The other 2 co-founders of my startup had a private meeting with a VC without informing me"). Now, something involving state agencies, I'd say is quite likely to involve some kind of conspiracy.
  • sageikosa 14y ago
    Technically, if not done in a public forum, its a conspiracy (two or more parties working together not in the open). In a republic, we tend to look down on those kinds of things when at least one of the parties is a government agency, or an agent of an agency. Conspiracies don't have to result in falsehoods being spread.