←back to thread

115 points snvzz | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.497s | source
Show context
VariousPrograms ◴[] No.41910406[source]
It's silly how privacy detractors try to associate so-and-so terrible group with any software that simply lets people talk without corporate or government surveillance, as if the concept of a private conversation is a strange and suspicious thing now.
replies(3): >>41910699 #>>41911421 #>>41915192 #
emodendroket ◴[] No.41911421[source]
I think in principle most people agree that it's appropriate under some limited circumstances for authorities to listen in to private conversations, given well-founded suspicion of illegal activities taking place, so digital tools making that outright impossible do pose a problem most people find a bit uncomfortable, whether or not they feel the benefits outweigh the downsides.
replies(8): >>41911707 #>>41911803 #>>41911945 #>>41912666 #>>41914188 #>>41914204 #>>41915512 #>>41918201 #
1. 0_gravitas ◴[] No.41915512[source]
i would most certainly not agree, that is an egregious assumption
replies(1): >>41921583 #
2. emodendroket ◴[] No.41921583[source]
Is it? A narrow majority of Americans polled when it was a topic of current debate expressed support for warrantless wiretapping to combat terrorism so I think it is extremely likely that much greater numbers would support a more limited process subject to more scrutiny.

https://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/27/politics/new-poll-finds-m...