this post was submitted on 01 Mar 2025
63 points (100.0% liked)

Privacy

16 readers
3 users here now

Icon base by Lorc under CC BY 3.0 with modifications to add a gradient

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] FizzyOrange@programming.dev 14 points 2 days ago (7 children)

I don't think they're stupid, they just don't care about the same things. The sooner people understand that the better.

[–] unexposedhazard@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 2 days ago (6 children)

Yeah i know, they are simply corrupt and serve the interest of tech companies looking to capitalize from those decisions. But that only makes sense on a surface level, because if we actually broke encryption like this, they themselves would be heavily negatively impacted by it. Nobody wins when all communication is backdoored. Ofcourse they would say "ah but we the important people wont have the backdoored version" but realistically that wont work.

[–] FizzyOrange@programming.dev 4 points 2 days ago (5 children)

Yeah i know, they are simply corrupt

They aren't stupid or corrupt. They have different priorities. Perfect privacy isn't a fundamental right. It's perfectly reasonable for some people think it is worth giving up in return for making it easier to catch criminals.

And yes it does make it easier to catch criminals. They aren't all tech masterminds with perfect opsec who think "oh, no E2E encryption in WhatsApp; I'd better use Signal instead".

I still think we should be allowed to have proper encryption. But I totally understand why some people don't, and it isn't because they are corrupt or stupid.

[–] aaron@infosec.pub 1 points 1 day ago

You have no idea whether the people pushing for encryption backdoors are corrupt or not.

Seeking to spy on everybody's private communications could be described as corrupt by default. It could also be called a whole host of things including creepy, fascist, totalitarian.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)