112 points by snvzz 2 days ago | 69 comments
VariousPrograms 1 day ago
krunck 22 hours ago
emodendroket 1 day ago
axus 1 day ago
Gud 1 day ago
The cops are free to get a warrant and use whatever tools they have in their arsenal.
emodendroket 10 hours ago
barryrandall 24 hours ago
em-bee 1 day ago
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?
emodendroket 10 hours ago
In other words, in some limited circumstances authorities can listen in
AlexandrB 1 day ago
BLKNSLVR 1 day ago
> 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.
em-bee 1 day ago
Brian_K_White 1 day ago
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.
big-green-man 1 day ago
There's no fundamental difference between a conversation in a meadow and one online.
jgwil2 1 day ago
big-green-man 20 hours ago
croes 1 day ago
big-green-man 20 hours ago
janderland 1 day ago
While there are arguments for preserving encryption, acting like online communication is the same as face to face is disingenuous.
big-green-man 20 hours ago
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.
remram 1 day ago
What the hell happened? Do they hate someone at SimpleX? Or hate Jack Dorsey? This is not journalism...
from-nibly 1 day ago
emodendroket 1 day ago
red-iron-pine 22 hours ago
sunaookami 1 day ago
skeptrune 2 days ago
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.
mind-blight 1 day ago
racked 14 hours ago
The only ones I've seen are for porn distribution and crypto banter. What do you refer to when saying 'the wrong kind'?
inquirerGeneral 1 day ago
krunck 22 hours ago
snvzz 12 hours ago
There is an official Linux client for the terminal.
It is likely that someone will eventually make a multi-platform GUI.
unethical_ban 22 hours ago
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