[realsimplesynd]

> Governments seem to be universally terrified of even the slightest possibility of anyone in the world having a private conversation.

How secure do you think face-to-face conversations are? (not sarcastic or anything, just genuinely interested on measuring security of conversations)

[azornathogron]

Not the author, but I would hazard an uninformed guess at three levels of security:

(1) a government is already specifically interested in you or the person you're talking to when you have your conversation: both the fact of the conversation and the content of the conversation can probably be captured pretty easily.

(2) no government is specifically interested in you prior to your conversation, but you take no special precautions: the content is probably secure, it's probably not being recorded, but your location is probably recorded so if you later become a target of interest then the fact of your meeting is likely to be recoverable.

(3) no government is specifically interested in you prior to your conversation, and you take precautions (being careful about when and where you meet, and not bringing your phone): probably your conversation is reasonably secure.

[gruez]

[deleted]

[samb1729]

You appear to have missed that this is a discussion of in-person conversations.

[a5withtrrs]

That depends on a lot of things. But some realistic concerns might include evesdropping using parabolic microphones, covert listening devices deployed at the meeting point etc.

Not to mention a) arranging the meeting and b) getting to the meeting need to be performed some how. Getting from point A to point B is, in today's society, not a surveillance free affair. Everything you carry can be used to track you, and even if you carry nothing, hundreds of CCTV cameras can likely follow you along the majority of your chosen route.

Thus the 'metadata' of your meeting is still known, even if the contents of your meeting isn't.

[nicbou]

Yes and as you pointed out, there is much more metadata being generated and collected nowadays. It would be prohibitively difficult not to leave a trace nowadays.

I'm thinking of cellphone tracking, automated plate reading, good old surveillance cameras, bank transactions, and whatever your computers are collecting unless you actively fight to stop them.

[kroltan]

Not the author, but I would say they might not be very secure, but importantly, they are _auditably_ so. You can look around to see if anyone shady is within earshot, and in many situations you can choose a (contextually) private location if you so desire.

Plus, it is a bit harder to mass surveil people, even with voice recognition, as one can go into a crowded place (or, well, could, barring current circumstances...) so most of the audio is drowned out.