• Steve Dice@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    8 hours ago

    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.

    • StupidBrotherInLaw@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 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@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          5 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.