An amendment to the “Narcotrafic” law is moving to the French National Assembly. Remind your legislators that a backdoor for the good guys only is not possible.
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.
Wow indeed. We’re only a few comments deep, so you can see the 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.
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.
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.
But their comment doesn’t say or suggest that.
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.
Wow indeed. We’re only a few comments deep, so you can see the comment. This one:
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.
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.