Re:Senators propose lawful access to encrypted data
by carbocation on Saturday June 27, 2020 @12:47PM
(#23662882)
The article’s title is “New US Bill would require makers of encrypted devices to leave a backdoor” which reads much less like propaganda than the current HN headline of “Senators propose lawful access to encrypted data.”
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Senators propose lawful access to encrypted data
by eyelidlessness on Saturday June 27, 2020 @02:09PM
(#23663466)
Both titles are accurate-but-biased representations of the same subject matter. I agree with your bias, but I think it's a mistake to identify one as propaganda and not the other.
This is something we should be biased about, and it's okay to embrace that.
Re:Senators propose lawful access to encrypted data
by Multicomp on Saturday June 27, 2020 @04:47PM
(#23664564)
Hey there. OP here.
I submitted that particular title since I was on mobile and in a hurry, so I converted the URL of 'http://www.androidauthority.com/lawful-access-to-encrypted-d... with two words such that the title would be a grammatically correctish sentence.
No editorialization intended and if I had more time I would have opened a separate tab to load the article, then copy/pasted the article title.
Mods, feel free to correct the title as needed.
Re:Senators propose lawful access to encrypted data
by xigency on Saturday June 27, 2020 @01:11PM
(#23663035)
Does it? I’m not sure I see a material difference, but maybe it’s because I know the context of US government snooping.
Re:Senators propose lawful access to encrypted data
by throwaway_pdp09 on Saturday June 27, 2020 @01:18PM
(#23663079)
There's no material difference but a huge one in presentation, and also in detail: the second says what, the first says how.