[dalbasal]

I disagree. This may or may not be effective, but it's not theatre.

Criminals, terrorists, dissidents, politicians, even intelligence people sometimes... they're users. Just because they can sideload, or otherwise use more sophisticated methods doesn't mean they will. The margins are wide.

Imo, same thing is happening in India as is happening in most places with an active security-intelligence service. They receive valuable intelligence from PMs. Then they fret about potentially losing access or want to increase access.

If you read HN/Reddit/Twitter, you'd get the impression that all this stuff is fake. It's not. Intelligence agencies in 2023 are all about these sources, and jelously guard them. Once they have a source, they're not giving it up willingly.

[nine_k]

Certainly a ban like that, if it can be made at least somewhat effective, will prevent a lot of uses of encrypted messaging by less sophisticated users. I'm afraid it's not going to be effective against the stated targets, the well-prepared terrorists sponsored by a neighboring state. Those will be trained to sideload, or whatever else it takes.

[rinka_singh]

Even "somewhat effective" is better than no ban. Given the state of terrorism in some parts, this is a crucial tool. For example in the aftermath recent terrorist bombing in Pulwama, clamping down on Internet had helped.

Let's not forget people died there.

[jruohonen]

Exactly as you said. Besides, much of things cannot be sideloaded because otherwise recruitment for a cause becomes impossible.