The founder helping us take back our privacy

[dealmaker]

https://email.mg2.substack.com/c/eJ...eOxydB-qA39kjEab7eDXUSam4GFm1tbGqBv0X8gdxcYgS

The founder helping us take back our privacy:Moxie Marlinspike is the CEO of Signal, the end-to-end encrypted messaging service, which he launched in 2014. Marlinspike believes that encrypted-communication tools aren't just necessary during political tumult. Activists use Signal to coordinate protests, lovers to conduct affairs, workers to unionize, finance professionals to exchange sensitive information, drug dealers to contact customers, and journalists to communicate with sources. Here's how he is "trying to bring normality to the internet."(The New Yorker)

“Anything that I’ve ever written or created, one way or another, about anything is sort of embarrassing to me a month later. Even more so five years later.”

 

[Trader Curt]

Yes I use signal to send all messages on my phone, and not because I have anything to hide, but because I care about our government agents and don't want them to waste their time reading about my boring life.

 

[Damanuelman]

Yes I use signal to send all messages on my phone, and not because I have anything to hide, but because I care about our government agents and don't want them to waste their time reading about my boring life.

I feel you bro. For me it was the NSA Edward Snowden thing that made me say f this government.

 

[JSOP]

The founder helping us take back our privacy:drug dealers to contact customers, and journalists to communicate with sources. Here's how he is "trying to bring normality to the internet."(The New Yorker)

“Anything that I’ve ever written or created, one way or another, about anything is sort of embarrassing to me a month later. Even more so five years later.”

Drug dealers to contact customers shouldn't be considered "normality" to the internet. It's criminality. Drug dealing is a crime in 99.99% of the countries in the world so drug dealers are criminals unlike activists that are considered criminals in one country but heroes in another. So their criminal activities shouldn't be protected by technology so they can be allowed to bring harm.

 

[Damanuelman]

Drug dealers to contact customers shouldn't be considered "normality" to the internet. It's criminality. Drug dealing is a crime in 99.99% of the countries in the world so drug dealers are criminals unlike activists that are considered criminals in one country but heroes in another. So their criminal activities shouldn't be protected by technology so they can be allowed to bring harm.

Exactly man it's almost like people forget that anything can be used to help or harm people. It just depends on whose hands it falls into.

Edit: Don't be afraid of new tools. Use them to build a better world if you're that worried about it you know.

 

[userque]

Yes I use signal to send all messages on my phone, and not because I have anything to hide, but because I care about our government agents and don't want them to waste their time reading about my boring life.

So ... you're saying ... intelligence agencies will simply only expend resources towards texts that no one bothered to encrypt ... and ... not too much worry about people that made an effort to hide their communications.

I'm not going to explain anything thing, just wanted to drop that clue.

 

[Trader Curt]

So ... you're saying ... intelligence agencies will simply only expend resources towards texts that no one bothered to encrypt ... and ... not too much worry about people that made an effort to hide their communications.

I'm not going to explain anything thing, just wanted to drop that clue.

I'm not saying the FBI can or can't decode encrypted messages but it would definitely make their lives harder if they were trying to investigate, if they could even do it at all. Local law enforcement would definitely have a hard time decoding it. And if they want to try to decode everyone using encrypted messages then it's going to take them a lot of time. People use encrypted messages for many different reasons. But hey, if they want to try with my phone then let them, they will only find out that I am a boring person that abides by the rules.

 

[userque]

I'm not saying the FBI can or can't decode encrypted messages but it would definitely make their lives harder if they were trying to investigate, if they could even do it at all. Local law enforcement would definitely have a hard time decoding it. And if they want to try to decode everyone using encrypted messages then it's going to take them a lot of time. People use encrypted messages for many different reasons. But hey, if they want to try with my phone then let them, they will only find out that I am a boring person that abides by the rules.

I understand. My only point is that the very fact someone hides their communications, may actually cause more work for the agencies ... not less, as you suggested. (Note that many other factors are likely involved, as we are only lightly discussing the topic. But hopefully, you get what I'm saying.)

If no one used encryption, that would save resources.
If only criminals used encryption, that would save resources.
But ... because innocents ... and ... criminals use encryption, more resources must be deployed, for multiple reasons.

Imo.

 

[AbbotAle]

If any moron thinks having back doors to all our tech is worthwhile to 'help keep us safe' then why stop there if you're 'doing nothing wrong'. Let's put cameras in your home a la 1984. If you're 'doing nothing wrong' why would you object to it?

It always starts out small, then grows from there. 1984 is where we're heading. Now, you can say fine, the politicians of today generally aren't a bad bunch (just incompetent) but what about the politicians of tomorrow? What happens if they're bad?

Learn from history everyone....

 

[userque]

If any moron thinks having back doors to all our tech is worthwhile to 'help keep us safe' then why stop there if you're 'doing nothing wrong'. Let's put cameras in your home a la 1984. If you're 'doing nothing wrong' why would you object to it?

It always starts out small, then grows from there. 1984 is where we're heading. Now, you can say fine, the politicians of today generally aren't a bad bunch (just incompetent) but what about the politicians of tomorrow? What happens if they're bad?

Learn from history everyone....

Uhmmm ... no one here said that.

If you were replying to me (quote me next time), let me know and I'll give you an appropriate response.