The cops are free to get a warrant and use whatever tools they have in their arsenal.
as our social life makes more and more use of digital communication, it must have the same protections as a face to face conversation in my home.
in germany wiretapping is only allowed for serious crimes and home surveillance is even more restricted.
in other words if digital communication gets the same protection as home surveillance then you can just use that home surveillance or try to install a listening tool on the persons phone. if home surveillance is not possible then why should digital surveillance be any easier?
In other words, in some limited circumstances authorities can listen in
if these principles hold true then the general population must be allowed to use unbreakable encryption for their communication, just as i am able to build my home in such a way that hidden surveillance is not possible.
https://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/27/politics/new-poll-finds-m...
You're right. You know where the most illegal activities take place ? In the parliament. Can we listen to the private conversations of our representatives ? /s
> private face-to-face conversations do not allow for effective coordination of actions across large distances. <snip> this kind of messaging and a conversation are not the same thing.
Technology allows it. The same way it allows for myriad other applications that technology has made possible via extension of a base capability. I would argue that the technological ability extend 'topic X' makes it close enough to "the same thing".
If a Government has a problem with an app because it allows private conversation between physically distant individuals, then that Government likely also has a problem with private conversations between non-physically distant individuals. They just won't mention that because it's transparently obviously authoritarian.
The 'technology' angle only has political play because there will always be a core contingent of society that is scared enough of technology to have a much louder voice than their numbers would indicate.
ie warrants and wire taps and physically breaking in to buildings and safes could be done to anyone at any time, but not everyone, at the same time, all the time, from afar, without even being seen.
It's disingenuous to rationalize or excuse one without acknowledging the other.
And even the old form of the right and ability to break in to any safe still didn't magically un-burn a paper, so that argument against encryption was never valid.
Devils advocate is a critical role, but in this case it only serves the valuable role of showing that no matter how hard one tries, there is no validity to authoritarian/statist attacks on encryption, or indeed any self-actualized tech.
There's no fundamental difference between a conversation in a meadow and one online.
While there are arguments for preserving encryption, acting like online communication is the same as face to face is disingenuous.
It's not the same. But it's not fundamentally different, it's just the technology makes it such that meeting up with someone to talk, no matter where they are, is trivial. It's like a pulley.
What the hell happened? Do they hate someone at SimpleX? Or hate Jack Dorsey? This is not journalism...
The article begins with
>The Wired article by David Gilbert
Acknowledging that there is a real person called David Gilbert who wrote the article and it wasn't just an amalgamation known as "Wired" who did. Yet later it says:
>Wired just a month earlier encouraged its readers to adopt encrypted messaging apps, making its current stance even more contradictory.
But that article was written by Lauren Goode and Michael Calore.
If Wired had a stance in this, it would be exercising editorial control, which some would criticize for censoring the authors. Instead, Wired publishes whatever its authors write, and then some criticize for writing contradictory articles.
If I was Wired I'd just shrug because you can't win.
(though if that is the case it hasn’t really made it through to me until now)
Though I would expect a magazine to have some more consistency in ideology.
Same way we might read an article from a muscle-car-lover glowing about a Land Rover right before an article calling for bans on pure-ICE vehicles in MotorTrend.
It's also possible that's not the case and they just publish whatever.
In any case what I mean is that I find it odd to ascribe intent to everything a publication publishes. They publish a lot of things by a lot of authors. They probably have more than one editor checking the articles. It's not possible to control the whole narrative.
Even if you assume that Wired has an agenda and that it exercises editorial control to further that agenda, that agenda isn't necessarily related to this particular topic. There are hundreds of topics to have agendas for. They may have a general pro-technology bias without bothering to decide their stance on every single sub-topic within their niche, for example.
Wired is a brand, and they have editors. Nothing gets published without editors.
Those editors can choose what to push, or not. There will be a policy about what they push, and why. That policy is what decides if it's Drudge Report, or Avanti!, Fox News or Mother Jones, etc.
Telegram's and discord's "news" style channel features have always seemed to attract the wrong kind of usage.
An article criticizing private messaging apps for dedicated features like that which enable hate groups and scammers would be more interesting. Encryption seems like a red herring.
The only ones I've seen are for porn distribution and crypto banter. What do you refer to when saying 'the wrong kind'?
2) Major mobile platforms are anti privacy in some ways, reasonably private in others
3) Mobile devices have cameras which make QR/key sharing much easier than desktop
4) GrapheneOS
There is an official Linux client for the terminal.
It is likely that someone will eventually make a multi-platform GUI.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentence_clause_structure#Run-...
https://www.wired.com/story/fbi-section-702-us-person-querie...
I was personally rather surprised to seem them posting the kind of mainstream media style hit piece justly criticized here.
It's a conspiracy theory, especially when talking about any specific media organization, but the intelligence agencies certainly did this before, and it came out in the Church committee. There are a few journalists who continue to work at big-name outlets despite being named as assets in the diplomatic cable leaks, for example. So it's not unreasonable to suggest, I'd say.
Isn't Telegram notorious at this point for being the go-to app for people distributing CSAM? Not trying to tar Telegram, and obviously, most people are using it legitimately. But it's crazy that Wired seems more concerned about what messaging service "dozens" of "neo-Nazis" (no doubt generously defined) are using rather than child exploitation. In fact, the article only mentions child exploitation in two paragraphs. It would be like an article about "Roblox Racists" that ignores its much more serious predator problem.
Where I live in Spain it's super popular.
I like the more gritty platforms like VRChat.
Proper journalism, which the media is not, is the so-called Fourth Estate which is of great benefit to society and it isn't impossible. However, proper journalism like any product of labor costs money. Most people by and large do not pay for content that isn't sensationalist, and proper journalism cannot take public money from the government due to conflicts of interest.
The practical prerequisites to enable proper journalism therefore make it impossible.
I’m having a real hard time understanding what you are trying to say here.
The TL;DR is that whatever you are saying isn't worth anyone's time of day if you're using Hitler or the Nazis in your argument, and you made everyone in the room dumber with just your sheer presence by doing so.
[1]: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GodwinsLaw
And yes, it's a TVTropes link, but for once it actually is a good read if you aren't familiar with old internet lore.
If you prefer less modern examples, see also Reductio ad Hitlerum[2] which was noted in 1953 by Leo Strauss. George Orwell also observed it in passing in an essay in 1944.[3]