Re:UK surveillance bill includes powers to limit end-to-end ...
by slg on Monday July 25, 2016 @05:16PM
(#12161665)
You are thinking of this in a vacuum and not as part of a political debate. When a politician mentions terrorism, there are coffins and mourning families to point to as victims. That is what I mean be "real" problem. It isn't about risk or pure numbers. It is about concrete effects that are easy to see and understand. What does the politician who is pro-encryption point to as a victim? If the answer is The Constitution or any other abstract ideal, you already lost the hearts and minds of the general population.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:UK surveillance bill includes powers to limit end-to-end ...
by zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC on Monday July 25, 2016 @05:33PM
(#12161767)
Yeah, I am not denying that it's perceived by many people as a real problem. I am just saying that it actually isn't. Which also means that these effects aren't actually easy to understand. It's easy to be mistaken about them. That's the problem.
Not accepting this misleading framing is an important step in addressing the wishes of the population for totalitarianism.