I see this as a really strong money making opportunity for a family run business that has, at times, had an adversarial relationship with the FBI to invest some of the family money into a strongly encrypted messaging platform.
those companies… have been contacted by the FBI and warned that pedophiles, criminals or terrorists had used their privacy-preserving app…"
So were these convicted terrorists? Or just accused terrorists being publicly slandered before trial? Or could they be… you know… imaginary terrorists?
If FBI accuses a vendor of hindering investigation and/or supporting terrorists, I’ll take it as an endorsement of the product.
Are there actually any people who’d prefer to be surveilled by the cops and get law enforced on their idle chitchat?
Even if you are of the childlike-trust-in-the-goodness-of-the-feds school; every party who can’t access your data is a party who can’t spill it all over the place when they screw up.
Given that data breaches are somewhere between ‘daily news’ and ‘too common to amount to news anymore’ why would you want any potential weak links in the chain if you don’t absolutely have to include them? You hardly need to posit malice on the part of the vendor to prefer that they be architecturally incapable of screwing up and losing the data. Heck, on those occasions when I am ‘the vendor’ I prefer to avoid possessing or retaining anything not specifically required to get the job done, so that I can’t screw it up.
Imaginary terrorists are the most dangerous kind!
They can strike Imagination Land
the problem is that someone who will believe that, in the face of all evidence, is someone who also has childlike-trust-in-the-competence-of-the-feds, in the face of all evidence.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.