• StupidBrotherInLaw@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days 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
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          2 days 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.