What does this have to do with the claim at hand which is ‘we need to keep our comms infrastructure secure because critical things like the primary way our population conducts economic transactions depend upon it’?

That you find the population’s choice to use such mechanisms questionable, or that you think it is foolhardy to do so, does nothing to disobligate the government from trying to keep that infrastructure up and running.

▲

b112 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The point more is, this is one primary mechanism to spy on the populous. Primarily via 5-eyes, which means Americans are buying this data to spy on UK citizens.

▲

staplers 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I think they are pointing out it's an oxymoron. There's nothing to secure if the service itself is insecure and leaking..

▲

TallGuyShort 3 hours ago | parent [-]

It's classic what-aboutism though. Availability is part of security and that's what seems to be considered here. It's also the more immediate concern. Yes, the software supply chain and where your data goes has high potential for compromise. But I'm not actually seeing rampant fraud in my accounts or data leaks from my bank very often.

▲

b112 3 hours ago | parent [-]

High potential for compromise? No, the point is that every single transaction you make is being sold on the open market, that's the problem. Using cash prevents this. Using debit cards, credit cards, banking apps ensures this.

The banks provide the data anonymized, but then provide means to de-anonymize it.

	▲	TallGuyShort 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		You are discussing concerns that are completely orthogonal to the thread. The availability of digital banking was the concern. Not end to end privacy.