9 ms·
> the app enables communication even during network restrictions and creates a substantial risk of misuse by anti-national elements, terrorist organisations, or
by viktorcode 2mo ago
> the app enables communication even during network restrictions and creates a substantial risk of misuse by anti-national elements, terrorist organisations, organised criminal groups and cyber criminals seeking to evade lawful detection and continue communication despite legally imposed restrictions.
This mouthful boils down to exactly this: a form of communication not controlled by the government creates a risk for the country.
Sorry for pointing out the obvious, but if your country's safety depends on ability to block all forms of private person to person messages, your government has failed in one of its primary goals: providing safety for its citizens. They can blame Dorsey, Telegram, WhatsApp and what not, but it is their failure. Things will not change until people notice the obvious and vote out incompetent persons in power.
- darreninthenet 2mo agoPlaying Devils Advocate... isn't this the government taking action?
- viktorcode 2mo agoBlocking communications is basically sweeping the issue under the rug in the hopes that it dissolves on its own. This is closer to avoiding of "taking action"
- danw1979 2mo agoYes, misinformed and counterproductive action.
- stanfordkid 2mo agoI mean one could say they are taking action when they lock up and kill random immigrants... or getting into unnecessary wars in the middle east. I would hardly call that a measure of competence. In fact, I would love a government that did absolutely nothing at all ahead of this one.
- amanaplanacanal 2mo agoThe article is about India, not the US.
- mothballed 2mo agoThose "protections" are in place for the protection of the government, not the citizens. That's also why the US tried to classify encryption as arms and why they passed the gun control act (people nowadays might think modern gun control was passed to help school kids, no lmao, it was passed in response to the killing of JFK).
- duncan-donuts 2mo agoI don’t think anyone thinks gun control was passed to help school kids. People have been begging the govt to pass stricter gun control laws to protect kids for decades with very little success.
- deleted 2mo ago[deleted]
- wiskinator 2mo agoI don't have the citations to back this up anymore than you did, but it was also passed because of the rise in Black Power movements walking around with guns. I used to be an obnoxious gun control advocate until I learned that California's gun control legislation was brought about in response to the Black Panther's patrolling predominantly black neighborhoods while armed to protect the people of the neighborhood from state sponsored (police) violence. Reference to start from: https://www.kcra.com/article/liberty-limits-black-panther-party-impact-california-gun-laws/69623049 https://www.kcra.com/article/liberty-limits-black-panther-pa... This topic is full of subtlty so recommend reading the sources from that article and so on.
- cucumber3732842 2mo ago>I don't have the citations to back this up anymore than you did, but it was also passed because of the rise in Black Power movements walking around with guns. Were they what precipitated it or were they one of the many factors used to get the public on board? 9/11 didn't write the patriot act.
- 2mo ago
- ifh-hn 2mo agoI'm not condoning this but what would you suggest they should be doing to keep people safe? I'm fairly sure whatever they do you'd likely be complaining about it. Glad to be wrong though.
- serf 2mo agoand in this argument we pre-suppose that loss of privacy equates to an increase in safety, right?
- tejohnso 2mo agoYou don't have to presuppose, you can choose any one of the common positions that work well. Like, it shouldn't matter if you have nothing to hide and are law abiding, or, it's safer for the children, or, it's for the greater good and you're being selfish, etc.
- ifh-hn 2mo agoI've replied to other comments but to reiterate I am not saying that at all. I was simply trying to ask what the OP considers an appropriate form of safety a government might take.
- imglorp 2mo ago"Do you consider your position so weak that it cannot withstand debate?" -- Data, STNG They're afraid of people communicating. That's not a safety thing.
- ifh-hn 2mo agoI'm not at all saying private messaging makes people unsafe. I was interested in what the OP thinks governments should be doing to keep people safe. Clearly I have not worded my reply carefully enough, so for clarity: I am all for private messaging and against mass surveillance.
- infinite_spin 2mo agoHow is private messaging causing people to become unsafe? If you're saying privacy = unsafe environment, then your right to privacy is meaningless.
- cucumber3732842 2mo ago>This mouthful boils down to exactly this: a form of communication not controlled by the government creates a risk for the government. Fixed that for you. It's a subtle but important difference. There is only partial overlap between what's good for the government and the country. At some times in some countries the overlap may be substantial, or it may be scant if at all.
- hamper653 2mo ago[dead]
- rolph 2mo agoyou are being too charitable in your evaluation.
- adityaathalye 2mo agoHilariously (darkly), during the pandemic, the very same reason is why the very same administrators were hell-bent on forcing Bluetooth-always-on contact tracing on the whole country's smartphone-carrying population. (edit: viz. that forcible peer-to-peer bluetooth networking works. One man's unrestricted mass-surveillance is another person's "terrorist activity". Oh how the turntables turn and turn.)
- KitN 2mo agoBut that did save lives; I was able to know my family had Covid before the symptoms showed up. Happened with a lot of other people too.
- t0bia_s 2mo ago[flagged]
- npunt 2mo agoFwiw what you are describing is literally survivorship bias.
- stinkbeetle 2mo agoYes, similarly the other side of people who survived authoritarian governments.
- zakki 2mo agoI don't think it is a survivorship bias if most people survive from COVID19.
- giantg2 2mo agoWe'd have to see the data to say wether it was true or bias. Perhaps comparing similar nations where one had Bluetooth contact tracing and the other didn't. I'm skeptical that it made much difference either way compared to the other factors.
- tavavex 2mo agoI wonder how long it's going to take until we have universal communication monitoring, including in real life. It's not an impossible technical challenge, it's just a question of time. Every spoken word recorded forever and scrutinized. After all forms of distant private communication fall, the spoken word will be the last one remaining. And all these arguments they're making apply to it, too.
- transcriptase 2mo agoThat went live about a decade ago. Heck, a lot of the people who built it and maintain it are here on HN, each getting paid so well and contributing only so little that if they can even admit it to themselves, they would never do it publicly.
- tavavex 2mo agoWhat went live a decade ago? I feel like the monitoring technology we have now (let alone what we had in 2016) is still just scratching the surface, it can (will) get so much worse. My post was talking about things like discreet microphones in public spaces that can automatically separate and recognize multiple voices, smartphones recording and sending every word (or, even better - 24/7 camera footage) to the relevant authorities. But it's not just recording - we still lack the deep level of organization to automatically and fully correlate and organize ALL these types of data from countless sources for everyone. All of these are things that we already have to limited extents, but they're still not taking full advantage of, yet.
- selectodude 2mo agoI’ve heard mixed things about the efficacy of Palantir’s software but it’s certainly something that they’re working very hard on doing.
- mannanj 2mo agoDoesn't the NSA technology already do all of this?
- 2mo ago
- t0bia_s 2mo agoand vote out incompetent persons in power. How you can vote someone out?
- derwiki 2mo agoRecall elections. California loves them.
- mlmonkey 2mo agoSo when are we recalling Trump?
- platevoltage 2mo agoYou vote against them when they're up for re-election. If they're not up for re-election, you vote against anyone who allies themselves with said person.
- t0bia_s 2mo agoSo main driver is frustration? Why not remove immunity to electorate and keep them responsible for their decisions? Or, even better, don't give our responsibility to uknown electorate at all.
- platevoltage 2mo agoSure, I'll get right on that.
- hamper653 2mo ago> Sorry for pointing out the obvious, but if your country's safety depends on ability to block all forms of private person to person messages, your government has failed in one of its primary goals: providing safety for its citizens. Sorry for pointing out the obvious, but "providing safety for its citizens" is not, has never been, and never will be a "goal" of any government on this planet.
- ranyume 2mo agoHobbes's Leviathan wants to have a call with you.
- hamper653 2mo agoSorry, I’m already on the line with Society. She’s telling me how her signature has been forged on some scam contract.
- mitthrowaway2 2mo agoThis is an absurd claim.
- nektro 2mo ago> is not, has never been, and never will be a "goal" of any government on this planet. this is not a productive outlook to have
- jimz 2mo agoYour "productive outlook" in this case is mere wishful thinking and campaign rhetoric. It will never come to pass in a meaningful way. The legitimacy of the state is defined by its monopolistic right to use force without meaningful consequence to the institution. It's a difference of degree, but since a government would lose a great deal of its supposed raison d'etre if they actually accomplish the goal, there isn't even an incentive to act on it.
- nektro 2mo ago
- noncoml 2mo ago“incompetent persons in power”. The fact that they can get away with shit like this makes them pretty competent in my book. To me it’s the opposition that’s incompetent, not being able to put an end to the circus.
- tensegrist 2mo agotapping the sign https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48922409 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48922409
- mlmonkey 2mo agoIt's easy to criticize others when your own government basically mandates backdoors into all comm devices, thereby obviating the need for hamfisted maneuvers like blocking apps, etc.; after all, who needs to block apps when there are backdoors farther down which allow the reading of all keystrokes and characters displayed?
- wrycoder 2mo agoInstant, wide-range (mesh) private comms are rather different than a couple of people out in a field at night talking.
- Avicebron 2mo ago> Sorry for pointing out the obvious, but if your country's safety depends on ability to block all forms of private person to person messages, your government has failed in one of its primary goals: providing safety for its citizens. Exactly. How about doing something for people instead of trying to control them, people aren't becoming radicals when their basic needs are met, they have a well paying jobs, housing, and health insurance.
- martin82 2mo agoVoting has never worked to bring competence into the government. Exhibit A: All governments of the world, right now.
- port11 2mo agoRandom allocation of citizens to seats might actually make for a better government. We could try that one, since the MBAs-and-lawyers clique with money/influence have been doing a poor job lately.
- wolvesechoes 2mo ago> Random allocation of citizens to seats might actually make for a better government. Not only that, but that would be actually democratic concept. Greeks long ago found that elective systems are in the end oligarchies.
- sharts 2mo agoHow can you vote out incompetence when only the incompetent gravitate toward controlling the levers of power?
- cindyllm 2mo ago[dead]