> carried out by tech savvy teenagers using encrypted chats.

This literally doesn't matter. You can just use codewords, hide information via steganography, or even just communicate IRL in absence of encryption.

Using this as an argument to destroy privacy is like deciding we should cut out everyone's tongues because criminals are using them to communicate and surely they will be unable to find alternative methods of communication. Maybe let's ban literacy while we're at it?

▲

rekoil 2 days ago | parent [-]

Or just host their own actually end-to-end encrypted chat apps.

▲

IshKebab 2 days ago | parent [-]

Yeah sure, teenage gangs are totally going to do that...

▲

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 2 days ago | parent [-]

I sense sarcasm, so apologies if my question is off base.

Why does this seem unlikely to you?

▲

IshKebab 2 days ago | parent [-]

People who join teenage gangs do not have enough computing knowledge to host their own end-to-end encrypted chat services.

Surely that is obvious?

	▲	lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 6 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> Surely that is obvious? It kinda is but I didn't want to make that assumption. That is what I had assumed, for what it's worth. (Actually, I figured it was either knowledge or resources.) It also helps for the reason to be given explicitly so others can weigh in with relevant arguments rather than one that refutes something you didn't mean.
	▲	happymellon a day ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		Teenagers figure out how to hack locked down consoles, which are hostile to make money. All it will take is someone to make a fediverse chat that can be simply stuck on a Pi from a premade image, and automatically runs a script to update the DNS with their IP and the kids will do it.
	▲	Suzuran 2 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Someone will make it easier. All the stuff you use today used to be a lot harder and more complicated than it is now. People worked to take the difficulty off, usually because they wanted to do the same thing and the difficulty annoyed them.