Comment by miohtama
1 day ago
If Modi government wants to ban something, it is usually good stuff.
> “The application’s design, which enables communication even during network restrictions, creates a substantial risk of misuse by anti-national elements, terrorist organisations, organised criminal groups, and cybercriminals seeking to evade lawful detection and continue communication despite legally imposed restrictions,” the notice mentioned.
Literally any encrypted mesh net communication protocol would be subject to the same propaganda. The point of this stuff is providing checks and balances for the people against a rogue government, or emergency situation.
Yeah, did you know criminals can use roads to commit crimes, too? We should destroy all of the roads. Terrorists also use food to give them energy to commit more terrorism, so we should start regulating access to food behind mandatory ID checks.
Honestly no idea what I’d do if I were in government.
Originally you’d communicate by mail and they could get a warrant. The day encrypted comms showed up, they wouldn’t just want to give up.
If you love the encryption but hate the terrorism, what to do? Double down on old school / physical surveillance? (Obviously not my field)
They need to adapt then. Plenty of encryption users have been busted. Whether by grabbing their device while it's unlocked or by turning a prison sentence into house arrest if they snitch on their peers.
Originally, you'd communicate by mail, but some people didn't write things out in plain language; they used coated messages.
That was why the government decided to ban mail, and since that didn't cover all cases, they also banned people handing things to each other.
At least, I think that is how I remember it going in an alternate world where physical laws mimiced electronic laws.
Yes, exactly that. Tons of crime is committed using only in-person communication. Should we all have microphones in our homes? Do detective work, flip sources, follow the money.
1 reply →
I believe that most of terrorism does happen because the people behind it have some goals, not for funsies; so trying to fight the causes would be one thing to do. Obviously, that's difficult for many reasons, and making life more shit for everyone else is cheap and easy, and hence preferred.
4 replies →
If you were sane, you would realise that restricting the right of billions of people to communicate privately, a right they have enjoyed for all the thousands of years of human history, is handing terrorists a complete and total victory far beyond any act of violence they could commit. The purpose of a government is not to prevent 100% of all crime and terrorism by locking every citizen in a straitjacket.
This also isn't even motivated by terrorists, but rather people daring to oppose the government.
2 replies →
So there was no terrorism or crime or trafficking or money laundering prior to encrypted comms?
> Honestly no idea what I’d do if I were in government.
It's not ordinary citizens' job to figure out solutions to these problems. Government has teams of intelligence agencies to answer these questions. Encrypted chat is fundamental infra that shouldn't be blocked.
2 replies →
Become a society where nobody feels it necessary to fall back on "terrorism" to get themselves properly heard.
2 replies →
> Honestly no idea what I’d do if I were in government.
Spending crazy amounts in public education, healthcare, and nuclear arsenal?
We do regulate food. Tons of substances are not allowed.
We also regulate roads. You can not drive around in tanks. Or without license plate...
You clearly do not stand by your own argument, given your use of a throwaway. You realize that you're arguing a straw man. There is no reason to seriously engage with your reply.