| ▲ | ifh-hn 7 hours ago |
| I'm not condoning this but what would you suggest they should be doing to keep people safe? I'm fairly sure whatever they do you'd likely be complaining about it. Glad to be wrong though. |
|
| ▲ | permalac 44 minutes ago | parent | next [-] |
| Very similar argument to those who want to ban encryption. Why do you need to encrypt your network traffic with ssl, is you have nothing to hide.... |
|
| ▲ | imglorp 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| "Do you consider your position so weak that it cannot withstand debate?" -- Data, STNG They're afraid of people communicating. That's not a safety thing. |
| |
| ▲ | ifh-hn 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | I'm not at all saying private messaging makes people unsafe. I was interested in what the OP thinks governments should be doing to keep people safe. Clearly I have not worded my reply carefully enough, so for clarity: I am all for private messaging and against mass surveillance. |
|
|
| ▲ | serf 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| and in this argument we pre-suppose that loss of privacy equates to an increase in safety, right? |
| |
| ▲ | ifh-hn 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I've replied to other comments but to reiterate I am not saying that at all. I was simply trying to ask what the OP considers an appropriate form of safety a government might take. | |
| ▲ | tejohnso 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | You don't have to presuppose, you can choose any one of the common positions that work well. Like, it shouldn't matter if you have nothing to hide and are law abiding, or, it's safer for the children, or, it's for the greater good and you're being selfish, etc. |
|
|
| ▲ | infinite_spin 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| How is private messaging causing people to become unsafe? If you're saying privacy = unsafe environment, then your right to privacy is meaningless. |
| |
| ▲ | ifh-hn 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | That's not what I'm saying at all. If you've taken that from my comment you've misread it. | | |
| ▲ | infinite_spin 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | care to clarify yourself then? It's hard to see what other conclusion I should arrive at, because it seems like you're implying that privacy interferes with safety. | | |
|
|
|
| ▲ | subscribed 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Are you suggesting that taking down an application is making people safe? People are making independent communication networks using reticulum, LORA devices and hold tight - unregistered radio transmitters. You can't seriously argue trying to take down ONE app is acting in the interests of national security? |
| |
| ▲ | ifh-hn 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Are you suggesting that taking down an application is making people safe? No I'm not. > You can't seriously argue trying to take down ONE app is acting in the interests of national security? Again I'm not. See my replies to all the other comments. I'm only interested in what the OP of the comment I was replying to think governments should be doing. They implied that if this goes on (TFA) then the government is incompetent and all the people should be fired. Seems to me this sort of thing is the focus of most world governments (chat control, online identity checks, etc). These are all the same thing and as the op states indicates that all these governments are incompetent. So what does a competent government look like? What acceptable stuff should they be doing to solve the issues these measures are attempting to solve (however badly). Maybe my wording lead to misunderstanding but there you go. | | |
| ▲ | subscribed 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Ah, okay. > I'm not condoning this but what would you suggest they should be doing to keep people safe? That led me to believe you consider request to ban the app as an action in the interest of the general public, making them safe. I appreciate your response, thanks! |
|
|
