or instantly. politicians are people and I'm pretty sure they use phones. if a backdoor is added it will almost instantly be used against them I'm sure. even well meaning apps are hacked.

It's a moral obligation to do this to those who impose restrictions like this on the public.

This is where you’re wrong. Inconvenient rules don’t apply to them. They can engage in insider training and enrich themselves. They can disarm the public while they are protected by armed security. They will lay our secrets bare while maintaining theirs.

They will use national security as an excuse to keep their encryption while taking ours away.

Progressively… politician has become the new used-car-salesman as a profession …

Today it is their problem. Tomorrow it's someone else's. That's basically how the US has been operating for at least my lifetime.

Securitization is a common one too.

"Manifacturing Consent" is a book written by Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky. They discuss the propaganda model of communication in much broader sense.

Don't forget about

> "The Engineering of Consent" is an essay by Edward Bernays first published in 1947,

"Inventing Reality" by Michael Parenti is another book on the subject.

barthes mythologies

The Society of the Spectacle, Guy Debord

Simulacra and Simulation. And other works by Jean Baudrillard. His philosophy focuses on the unreal nature of contemporary culture due to mass communication and mass consumption.

“Crystallizing Public Opinion” (1923) is another important Bernays text.

And he surely knows what he is talking about.

"Die vierte Gewalt – Wie Mehrheitsmeinung gemacht wird, auch wenn sie keine ist"

https://www.fischerverlage.de/buch/richard-david-precht-hara...

Richard David Precht is a poor caricature of a French public intellectual figure and loves to create outrage to stay relevant. He lives off the same mainstream media that he criticizes.

Precht doesn't seem particularly French to me. He is a solid craftsman. I associate French intellectuals more with esprit and a certain craziness.

His earlier books had a slightly penetrating American style, popular science peppered with human interest stories.

Precht, however, is willing to make himself unpopular, but he is also one of the few intellectuals who can afford to do so. Many media workers probably don't like to read how strong the pressure to conform is, they prefer to suppress that.

The Century of Self is a BBC documentary about Bernays and his propaganda models. It's quite good and available on yt.

Watch everything by Adam Curtis. Century of the Self, The Trap and The Power of Nightmares specifically.

https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0193231/

Suspiciously absent from every streaming service over here. But at least Century of the Self has been uploaded to Youtube.

The term "Manufacturing consent" was coined by Noam Chomsky, American philosopher.

It wasn't. Noam Chomsky readily acknowledges that it was coined by Walter Lippmann in 1922's "Public Opinion".

Indeed it can be found in the book "Public Opinion" (1921) by Lippman:

https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/6456/pg6456.txt

oh they understand that. They are just scheming to make sure they are on the right side. Politicians are hated all around but most of the time, they are people who are willing to take massive personal risks.

> What these politicians do not seem to underestand is that those law may turn against them at a later point in time.

Those laws are incredibly unlikely to be turned against elites and former elites, and if a situation[1] ever arose where they would be, a lack of these laws on the books would not save them.

Populist uprisings are about the only things that elites are scared of, and these kinds of laws help prevent them[2].

[1] That kind of situation would require a complete and utter breakdown of the elite social contract. Things would have to get unrecognizably bad before we are at that point.

[2] Ever notice how, say pro-gun politicians tend to want guns to be everywhere except near them? As a class, they interested in dealing with the consequences of their policies.

> Ever notice how, say, pro-gun politicians tend to want guns to be everywhere except near them? As a class, they aren't interested in dealing with the consequences of their policies.

I’ve also noticed that anti-gun politicians tend to have armed security teams with them.

I’m not giving up my guns until they do.

You're assuming that your guns will protect you from random acts of gun violence, which they won't. It's why those politicians have security teams, as opposed to personal guns. What they are doing is completely rational in a country where it happens, frequently.

Unlike their counterparts, they are actually trying to solve the problem, instead of hypocritically exacerbating it.

If you're going to hold someone accountable, why not make your support of the pro-gun ones conditional on them providing you with a security team?

> You're assuming that your guns will protect you from random acts of gun violence, which they won't.

You’re assuming gun control laws will protect you from random acts of gun violence, which they won’t. Criminals get their hands on guns they can’t legally possess every day. There are more than enough gun control laws on the books and most Americans aren’t voluntarily turning theirs in no matter what the law says.

You’re also making the false assumption that I only support the personal right to bear arms for self defense against criminals. I also support it to defend against tyranny, which to me is far more likely to be a threat than a random act of gun violence.

> You’re assuming gun control laws will protect you from random acts of gun violence, which they won’t.

"No way to prevent this", says only nation where this regularly happens.

> Criminals get their hands on guns they can’t legally possess every day.

They get their hands on guns because the country is flooded with them. Because people in states with next to no private sale restrictions sell guns to them. Because people aren't held liable for selling a gun without running a background check.

Not to mention all the gun violence performed by 'law-abiding gun owners'. (Who, after performing it, are, of course, labeled criminals.)

> There are more than enough gun control laws on the books

In some states. They get flooded by illegal guns from neighboring states, which have no such controls.

> I also support it to defend against tyranny, which to me is far more likely to be a threat than a random act of gun violence.

Why is it, then, that the militias and their friends seem to roll out to defend tyranny, not oppose it? Why are the 2A advocates deafeningly silent on police killing POC in their homes/vehicles? Why does a cop thinking that 'He may have had a gun' a death sentence for the person they are apprehending? Why does this group intersect so much with the Jan 6 attempt to overthrow the results of an election?

I hear 'guns will protect us from tyrrany' a lot, but in practice, I see the opposite.

On the other hand, technical capabilities are highly likely to be used against elites and former elites; there often are situations where a country's police or intelligence communities are opposed to some political parties, so if there are backdoors in everyone's (including politicians) communications, they should rightly fear that their phones will be abused by their political opponents.

Anti gun politicians are also known to make personal exceptions.

> What these politicians do not seem to underestand is that those law may turn against them at a later point in time.

They have a belief that they will be The Law up to the end of their lives. One very well grounded on reality.