Dare ObasanjoDec 28, 2022

The New York Times comes out against encrypted apps like Signal using the classic arguments of terrorism and CSAM but puts their unique anti-tech spin on it by arguing

"Small groups of technologists are developing and deploying applications of their technologies for explicitly ideological reasons, with those ideologies baked into the technologies. To use those technologies is to use a tool that comes with an ethical or political bent."

This has always been the case.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/28/opinion/jack-dorseys-twitter-signal-privacy.html

Opinion | Jack Dorsey and the Dangers of Privacy At All Costs

The debate about dilemmas posed by the text messaging system.

The New York Times
Show threadFiona Bianchi
@carnage4life this argument has always been garbage because you can apply it to almost anything with the result that everything would be banned or heavily controlled. For example: cars are used as getaway vehicles so no one can have one, despite there being numerous “good” uses. “Baddies can do bad things” is just silly because any ban on E2E messaging won’t bother them and will leave normal peeps conversations open to government and baddies alike (often they are one and the same)
Dec 28, 2022 at 10:14pmWeb