France is about to pass the worst surveillance law in the EU.
-
So then you're in favor of these government backdoors? Because your comment suggests the opposite.
-
Ah yes, for the upcoming Ministry of Love.
-
I think you do, you just misread their comment.
-
What happened with Signal?
-
Nope. I didn't and I don't.
-
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.
-
Isn't that the CIA app?
-
Nope. You're the one refusing to admit being wrong.
-
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 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.
-
But they're not the good guys either
-
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'm telling someone who says that a want for uncompromising privacy is a US thing that it's not
But their comment doesn't say or suggest that.
and that these compromises they speak of would be akin to telescreens if applied to a non-digital situation.
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.
-
Sweden wants a backdoor. I hope that idiocy is shot down fast.
-
Wow. Seems like you missed an entire comment.
-
Ah, I heard about that. I recognized Proton’s and Apple’s self-inflicted bullshit, so I was afraid that Signal might have done something stupid to themselves as well
-
Wow indeed. We're only a few comments deep, so you can see the original 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.
-
Backdoors for 'good guys' don't exist—this is a shortcut to mass exploitation.
-
The literal first comment.
-
You're responding to a follow-up comment from a different user who is disagreeing with the first comment as if they're the author of the original comment and their clear dissent is actually them agreeing with themselves somehow. Of course, you're arguing with anyone who points out you're confused.
Literal fucking insanity, mate.
