• floofloof@lemmy.caOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    If that means compromising encryption, which it does, then the benefits to everyone of end-to-end encryption and the protection it affords against both government overreach/abuse and third-party intruders tend to outweigh the benefits of government surveillance through encryption backdoors.

    • SleafordMod@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 hours ago

      Maybe only the biggest companies should be required to be able to decrypt certain messages if a court warrant is produced. Privacy fans could use services exempt from this requirement, like Signal. But there are laypeople who just use iMessage because it’s the default, and you could catch criminals sending bad stuff over iMessage.

      I think there are valid concerns on both sides of the argument… but I am just imagining if you have a group of violent people planning an attack over iMessage, I want law enforcement to be able to read those messages.

      • floofloof@lemmy.caOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 hours ago

        Word would just get out that you should only use the secure services to communicate anything sensitive. We already have plenty of messaging services that are insecure, but enough people are preferring to use a secure option that it’s worrying the UK Government.