• @StupidBrotherInLaw
    link
    English
    24 hours ago

    I’m telling someone who says that a want for uncompromising privacy is a US thing that it’s not

    But their comment doesn’t say or suggest that.

    and that these compromises they speak of would be akin to telescreens if applied to a non-digital situation.

    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.

      • @StupidBrotherInLaw
        link
        English
        1
        edit-2
        2 hours ago

        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.