An amendment to the “Narcotrafic” law is moving to the French National Assembly. Remind your legislators that a backdoor for the good guys only is not possible.
I can invite someone over to my house and talk about anything I want with no risk of government meddling. Why should it be any different in online communication regardless of the country?
Continuing the analogy, government agencies can absolutely eavesdrop on in-person conversations unless you expend significant resources to prevent it. This is exactly what I believe will happen - organized crime will develop alternate methods the government can’t access while these backdoors are used to monitor less advanced criminals and normal people.
Spending significant resources to prevent it is exactly what encryption is. What the government wants is to completely eliminate online private communication. Continuing with the analogy: you want telescreens.
So you misread my comment but you’re one of those types who can’t admit when they’re wrong. I’d say it’s our little secret but I see someone else pointed it out too.
Telling someone who says government access will be used to spy on citizens but will be useless for combating serious crime that they want telescreens, a fictitious device used for government spying, doesn’t make any sense. Either you don’t know what a telescreen is, you have poor reading comprehension, or you’re a fairly clever troll. Maybe some of all the above.
I’m telling someone who says that a want for uncompromising privacy is a US thing that it’s not, and that these compromises they speak of would be akin to telescreens if applied to a non-digital situation.
I can invite someone over to my house and talk about anything I want with no risk of government meddling. Why should it be any different in online communication regardless of the country?
Continuing the analogy, government agencies can absolutely eavesdrop on in-person conversations unless you expend significant resources to prevent it. This is exactly what I believe will happen - organized crime will develop alternate methods the government can’t access while these backdoors are used to monitor less advanced criminals and normal people.
Spending significant resources to prevent it is exactly what encryption is. What the government wants is to completely eliminate online private communication. Continuing with the analogy: you want telescreens.
Huh? I don’t think you understand my comment. Except for the last line, you’re just further agreeing with me and I’m already agreeing with you.
I don’t agree with you.
So then you’re in favor of these government backdoors? Because your comment suggests the opposite.
No, I don’t agree that a want of privacy is an American thing.
So you misread my comment but you’re one of those types who can’t admit when they’re wrong. I’d say it’s our little secret but I see someone else pointed it out too.
Nope. You’re the one refusing to admit being wrong.
I think you do, you just misread their comment.
Nope. I didn’t and I don’t.
Telling someone who says government access will be used to spy on citizens but will be useless for combating serious crime that they want telescreens, a fictitious device used for government spying, doesn’t make any sense. Either you don’t know what a telescreen is, you have poor reading comprehension, or you’re a fairly clever troll. Maybe some of all the above.
I’m telling someone who says that a want for uncompromising privacy is a US thing that it’s not, and that these compromises they speak of would be akin to telescreens if applied to a non-digital situation.