France is about to pass the worst surveillance law in the EU.
-
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.
Wow. Seems like you missed an entire comment.
-
Sweden wants a backdoor. I hope that idiocy is shot down fast.
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. Seems like you missed an entire comment.
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.
-
cross-posted from: https://lemm.ee/post/56769139
cross-posted from: https://sopuli.xyz/post/23170564
Backdoors for 'good guys' don't exist—this is a shortcut to mass exploitation.
-
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.
The literal first comment.
-
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.
-
TSA officers steal from passengers
This may seem unrelated but it gives a real life physical example on exactly why backdoors shouldn't exist.
First off, fuck the NY post.
Secondly, no, it IS unrelated. An issue with the TSA is not an example of a backdoor. Both are bad things, but it ends there.
A law implementing a back door would be a far more ubiquitous concern than some one off sticky fingers in Florida.
Did the tsa use a backdoor to find out what people had in order to steal it? No. How tf is this dumb take supported.
-
First off, fuck the NY post.
Secondly, no, it IS unrelated. An issue with the TSA is not an example of a backdoor. Both are bad things, but it ends there.
A law implementing a back door would be a far more ubiquitous concern than some one off sticky fingers in Florida.
Did the tsa use a backdoor to find out what people had in order to steal it? No. How tf is this dumb take supported.
The little red locks on luggage have a backdoor for the TSA, so yes, they literally used a backdoor to find out what people had and steal it. The reason I brought it up is because people sometimes have a hard time realizing the severity of something unless it's grounded in the real physical world.
Also, chill the f out, man. Sheesh.
-
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.
Oh, I didn't see they were different users. Live and learn.
-
The little red locks on luggage have a backdoor for the TSA, so yes, they literally used a backdoor to find out what people had and steal it. The reason I brought it up is because people sometimes have a hard time realizing the severity of something unless it's grounded in the real physical world.
Also, chill the f out, man. Sheesh.
Red locks had nothing to do with that story. And they were caught and arrested. It is not related.
-
Red locks had nothing to do with that story. And they were caught and arrested. It is not related.
How do you think they open the bags?
-
How do you think they open the bags?
You don't need a tsa approved lock to open an unlocked bag. Nor a bag that is locked in any other fashion. Which is why this is a contrived connection.
-
You don't need a tsa approved lock to open an unlocked bag. Nor a bag that is locked in any other fashion. Which is why this is a contrived connection.
Do you unlock your bags before pushing them through the scanner? I only do it if they ask me to and that only happens directly in front of me. But sure, let's assume bags were fully unlocked and unattended, it's still a case of representatives of a government organization (aka the good guys) with full access to a backdoor showing that they're not to be trusted, which is the entire point I'm trying to make.
-
Do you unlock your bags before pushing them through the scanner? I only do it if they ask me to and that only happens directly in front of me. But sure, let's assume bags were fully unlocked and unattended, it's still a case of representatives of a government organization (aka the good guys) with full access to a backdoor showing that they're not to be trusted, which is the entire point I'm trying to make.
I don't lock them to begin with. And I certainly wouldn't purchase a tsa approved lock. Regardless, I was not subject to using a lock to avoid opening, that then had a backdoor. Which is why this is a bad comparison all around.
-
I don't lock them to begin with. And I certainly wouldn't purchase a tsa approved lock. Regardless, I was not subject to using a lock to avoid opening, that then had a backdoor. Which is why this is a bad comparison all around.
You are subject to a law requiring the lock you use to have a TSA backdoor added if you travel anywhere the TSA has jurisdiction.
-
You are subject to a law requiring the lock you use to have a TSA backdoor added if you travel anywhere the TSA has jurisdiction.
No. I'm not. I've never used that lock and I'm not required to.
Plus, the thieves in this case we're arrested. The French government would not be. This is a terrible comparison, even more so as we move along.
-
No. I'm not. I've never used that lock and I'm not required to.
Plus, the thieves in this case we're arrested. The French government would not be. This is a terrible comparison, even more so as we move along.
Yes, you are, you can look this up in like 12 seconds. The TSA as a whole was also not arrested. If a random worker in the French government uses the backdoor to spy on people and they're found out, I'm sure they'll be arrested. It really feels like you're just giving the analogy more strength with each comment.
-
Yes, you are, you can look this up in like 12 seconds. The TSA as a whole was also not arrested. If a random worker in the French government uses the backdoor to spy on people and they're found out, I'm sure they'll be arrested. It really feels like you're just giving the analogy more strength with each comment.
You are not required to use a tsa lock. Take that 12 seconds.
-
You are not required to use a tsa lock. Take that 12 seconds.
Crickets.
-
But they're not the good guys either
