Terrorists breath air, therefore we should ban air for everyone?

Generally, I try to avoid criticising others but this logic is really disturbing and dangerous and I am very worried about people who stand behind it. It hasn't gotten us anywhere. It never will.

Trying to understand your argument:

Are you saying that you think banning perfectly normal everyday things "because terrorism" is ok,

... or did you miss the invisible sarcasm tag?

None of the above. What the parent comment is sarcastic about is a line of argument people use, especially politicians who want to promote their agendas.

Nonsense.

Terrorists do use the air to convey voice; air is their primary communication medium for propagating their terrible ideas, and arranging their despicable plans. If we denied them access to air, to stop their voice communication, it would severely limit their ability to harm us. Isn't saving even just one child's life worth it? And don't worry about the terrorists without air not being able to talk about the legal, daily matters. Relevant institutions are already equipped to handle deaf and mute people. They could also just use internet or other service.

Just deny them air so they can't talk, okay? It's the common sense solution. /s

Slippery slope is a thing, especially when actors with under-handed intentions ask for simplistic, ham-fisted solutions. Once a precedent is established for censorship or snooping, it's pretty hard to draw, and defend, a line in the sand.

Does this mean that we should sit back and enjoy the show because "actors with under-handed intentions" and "precedent"s? Wake up. We can only get through collectively.

> Does this mean that we should sit back and enjoy the show because "actors with under-handed intentions" and "precedent"s?

No.

> We can only get through collectively.

Yep, but we shouldn't do it by throwing away the freedom we try to defend

There is no corporate entity supplying terrorists with air. This is why this consumer-based end-to-end encrypted chat messenger space isn't going to go anywhere. Telegram is delusional if they think nations will let them operate this kind of a business. Every terrorist attack where Telegram is used will paint a bigger and bigger bullseye on their backs. The media will get in on it. The public will get in on it. Lawmakers will get in on it. Hacker News will get in on it.

The witch hunt against Facebook shows how this will look though the particulars will be different. At the end of the day, Telegram has devs that need to eat and servers to pay for and at the very least all revenue sources will be denied to them.

> Every terrorist attack where Telegram is used will paint a bigger and bigger bullseye on their backs. The media will get in on it. The public will get in on it. Lawmakers will get in on it. Hacker News will get in on it.

Here I was, thinking that we here at HN aimed higher.

> The witch hunt against Facebook shows how this will look though the particulars will be different.

Witch hunt usually implies baseless, made up accusations.

When it comes to Facebook I'd phrase it differently; maybe something about consequences or justice?

>Here I was, thinking that we here at HN aimed higher.

Why would you think that? Nothing special about HN - it's a collection of humans from a very specific culture.

>Witch hunt usually implies baseless, made up accusations.

Not only. It also implies widely inflated and hyperbolic accusations.

This in amny ways is analogous to the gun debate in the United States. Everytime there is a major shooting, there are calls for certain types of guns to be banned. Every time there is a terrorist attack coordinated by an encrypted chat app, there will be calls to wither ban it or have a backdoor.

Your comment entirely and completely ignores the express intent and purpose of the objects you compare, which makes the comparison invalid.

The parent post is a nice example of the type of underhanded rhetoric that will eventually be used to sway the public in favor of banning encryption.

Pretend your target is inherently evil, and can only be used for inherently evil things. (Terrorism! Child abuse! Piracy!) Then you're perfectly set up to vilify anyone who dares to question your position.

I think it's a nightmare either way

Yeah. Plus I shouldn't give any VCs any more ideas.

It does when they switch apps and the other users can't legally do so.