Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   dilbert 1 (sun@shitposter.world)'s status on Sunday, 13-Apr-2025 05:24:56 JST dilbert 1
   > The bill is not only privacy-invasive, it’s also asking for the impossible. As breaches like Salt Typhoon demonstrate, you cannot provide a backdoor for just the “good guys,” and you certainly cannot do so for just a subset of users under a specific age. After all, minors are likely speaking to their parents and other family members and friends, and they deserve the same sorts of privacy for those conversations as anyone else.
   
   Every sentence in this statement is false.
   • Embed this notice
     dilbert 1 (sun@shitposter.world)'s status on Sunday, 13-Apr-2025 05:25:23 JST dilbert 1

     in reply to
     every service without e2ee is functionally backdoored by your stupid definition
   • Embed this notice
     dilbert 1 (sun@shitposter.world)'s status on Sunday, 13-Apr-2025 05:36:07 JST dilbert 1

     in reply to

     • mangeurdenuage :gnu: :trisquel: :gondola_head: 🌿 :abeshinzo: :ignucius:
     @mangeurdenuage it's a compound sentence and the answer is, no e2ee is just the default state of almost all services so the sentence presents it as something weird and unusual
   • Embed this notice
     mangeurdenuage :gnu: :trisquel: :gondola_head: 🌿 :abeshinzo: :ignucius: (mangeurdenuage@shitposter.world)'s status on Sunday, 13-Apr-2025 05:36:08 JST mangeurdenuage :gnu: :trisquel: :gondola_head: 🌿 :abeshinzo: :ignucius:

     in reply to
     @sun
     > you cannot provide a backdoor for just the “good guys,”
     What part of that sentence isn't false ?
     
     >After all, minors are likely speaking to their parents and other family members and friends, and they deserve the same sorts of privacy for those conversations as anyone else.
     Parents must not let unrestricted/unsupervised access to the internet for their kids.