• StupidBrotherInLaw@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    6 hours ago

    Wow indeed. We’re only a few comments deep, so you can see the comment. This one:

    Continuing the analogy, government agencies can absolutely eavesdrop on in-person conversations unless you expend significant resources to prevent it. This is exactly what I believe will happen - organized crime will develop alternate methods the government can’t access while these backdoors are used to monitor less advanced criminals and normal people.

    I challenge you to show where it suggests a “want for uncompromising privacy is a US only thing.” Then point out where they show support for government access to communications.

      • StupidBrotherInLaw@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        26 minutes ago

        You’re responding to a follow-up comment from a different user who is disagreeing with the first comment as if they’re the author of the original comment and their clear dissent is actually them agreeing with themselves somehow. Of course, you’re arguing with anyone who points out you’re confused.

        Literal fucking insanity, mate.