• @StupidBrotherInLaw@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      2
      edit-2
      26 days ago

      Telling someone who says government access will be used to spy on citizens but will be useless for combating serious crime that they want telescreens, a fictitious device used for government spying, doesn’t make any sense. Either you don’t know what a telescreen is, you have poor reading comprehension, or you’re a fairly clever troll. Maybe some of all the above.

      • Steve Dice
        link
        fedilink
        English
        -226 days ago

        I’m telling someone who says that a want for uncompromising privacy is a US thing that it’s not, and that these compromises they speak of would be akin to telescreens if applied to a non-digital situation.

        • @StupidBrotherInLaw@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          226 days ago

          I’m telling someone who says that a want for uncompromising privacy is a US thing that it’s not

          But their comment doesn’t say or suggest that.

          and that these compromises they speak of would be akin to telescreens if applied to a non-digital situation.

          And they don’t say anything about the compromises except that they’d be used for spying on citizenry.

          This isn’t my fight, I saw you were confused and thought I’d help. My mistake, you really are one of those double down or die types.

            • @StupidBrotherInLaw@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              2
              edit-2
              26 days ago

              Wow indeed. We’re only a few comments deep, so you can see the comment. This one:

              Continuing the analogy, government agencies can absolutely eavesdrop on in-person conversations unless you expend significant resources to prevent it. This is exactly what I believe will happen - organized crime will develop alternate methods the government can’t access while these backdoors are used to monitor less advanced criminals and normal people.

              I challenge you to show where it suggests a “want for uncompromising privacy is a US only thing.” Then point out where they show support for government access to communications.

                • @StupidBrotherInLaw@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  2
                  edit-2
                  26 days ago

                  You’re responding to a follow-up comment from a different user who is disagreeing with the first comment as if they’re the author of the original comment and their clear dissent is actually them agreeing with themselves somehow. Of course, you’re arguing with anyone who points out you’re confused.

                  Literal fucking insanity, mate.

                  • Steve Dice
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    026 days ago

                    Oh, I didn’t see they were different users. Live and learn.