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.
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.
Wow indeed. We’re only a few comments deep, so you can see the comment. This one:
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.
I challenge you to show where it suggests a “want for uncompromising privacy is a US only thing.” Then point out where they show support for government access to communications.
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.
But their comment doesn’t say or suggest that.
And they don’t say anything about the compromises except that they’d be used for spying on citizenry.
This isn’t my fight, I saw you were confused and thought I’d help. My mistake, you really are one of those double down or die types.
Wow. Seems like you missed an entire comment.
Wow indeed. We’re only a few comments deep, so you can see the comment. This one:
I challenge you to show where it suggests a “want for uncompromising privacy is a US only thing.” Then point out where they show support for government access to communications.
The literal first comment.