The cops are free to get a warrant and use whatever tools they have in their arsenal.
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.
What the hell happened? Do they hate someone at SimpleX? Or hate Jack Dorsey? This is not journalism...
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 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.
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.
It's a shame Wired is becoming this.
If you have to tell me about the bad Nazis I'm not interested in what you have to say. I'm going to be either be pushed to pro-Nazi or have a IQ above the Redditor NPCs who sit around circle jerking about who they don't like, rather than the actual issues in this world.
Heart disease is the biggest killer of Americans, what app do the McDonalds execs use?
I’m having a real hard time understanding what you are trying to say here.
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.
On the bright side it's good you're finally noticing it now, at least. The media is a cancer upon society and it's been festering for ages.