[Barbing]

Honestly no idea what I’d do if I were in government.

Originally you’d communicate by mail and they could get a warrant. The day encrypted comms showed up, they wouldn’t just want to give up.

If you love the encryption but hate the terrorism, what to do? Double down on old school / physical surveillance? (Obviously not my field)

[mcherm]

Originally, you'd communicate by mail, but some people didn't write things out in plain language; they used coated messages.

That was why the government decided to ban mail, and since that didn't cover all cases, they also banned people handing things to each other.

At least, I think that is how I remember it going in an alternate world where physical laws mimiced electronic laws.

[applfanboysbgon]

If you were sane, you would realise that restricting the right of billions of people to communicate privately, a right they have enjoyed for all the thousands of years of human history, is handing terrorists a complete and total victory far beyond any act of violence they could commit. The purpose of a government is not to prevent 100% of all crime and terrorism by locking every citizen in a straitjacket.

This also isn't even motivated by terrorists, but rather people daring to oppose the government.

[mdgld]

What terrorist is rooting for a government to eliminate private communication? For one, it makes their activities harder to carry out.

[inigyou]

It inflicts terror, doesn't it?

If you make the government do your terror for you, you win. Like the TSA after 9/11.

[soulofmischief]

What if the two groups are the same?

[collinmcnulty]

Yes, exactly that. Tons of crime is committed using only in-person communication. Should we all have microphones in our homes? Do detective work, flip sources, follow the money.

[inigyou]

We do though? They're called Alexa, and LG TVs.

Remember, the terms of service for your LG TV say you have to warn visitors to you house they're being eavesdropped.

[3form]

I believe that most of terrorism does happen because the people behind it have some goals, not for funsies; so trying to fight the causes would be one thing to do. Obviously, that's difficult for many reasons, and making life more shit for everyone else is cheap and easy, and hence preferred.

[philipallstar]

But if the cause is "death to the West" or "from the river to the sea" or "India should not be secular" then it's a bit of a problem. How do you fight the cause?

[iamnothere]

Provide a better alternative that satisfies the material grievances underlying the ideology

[philipallstar]

I don't think it's everyone's job to do that, though. If an ideology is innately, for the last 1300 years, expansive, by military might or by population demographic change, you can't blame past grievances for that. It's just innate.

[soulofmischief]

When you say expansive ideologies within the last 1300 years, did you mean religiously-motivated American colonial settlement, genocide and expansion under manifest destiny? Or did you mean religiously-motivated Israeli colonial settlement, genocide and expansion under Zionist doctrine?

I just want to make sure I understand which expansive ideology we're calling innate, because again I know you are not claiming that a sovereign nation's desire to rid itself of foreign colonial oppression and apartheid is "expansive".

[philipallstar]

I didn't say "within the last 1300 years".

[mdgld]

I love how you lumped “I’d like my literal children not to be killed because they might grow up to be ‘terrorists’” in with “death to secular society”

[philipallstar]

Which one is that?

[soulofmischief]

What poor taste, to attempt to equate terrorism to Palestinian liberation from colonial oppression, apartheid and genocide. You should be ashamed for making such a comment.

[inigyou]

They need to adapt then. Plenty of encryption users have been busted. Whether by grabbing their device while it's unlocked or by turning a prison sentence into house arrest if they snitch on their peers.

[snarf21]

So there was no terrorism or crime or trafficking or money laundering prior to encrypted comms?

[jatins]

> Honestly no idea what I’d do if I were in government.

It's not ordinary citizens' job to figure out solutions to these problems. Government has teams of intelligence agencies to answer these questions. Encrypted chat is fundamental infra that shouldn't be blocked.

[inigyou]

It did. The answer it came to? Make encryption illegal.

[soulofmischief]

Most governments today are corrupt and the actions or inactions of the government cannot be used to draw general conclusions about the necessity of and right to private communication as a check and balance against tyrannical governments.

[skeledrew]

Become a society where nobody feels it necessary to fall back on "terrorism" to get themselves properly heard.

[darkwizard42]

Yeah, I don't think the terrorism in India is from lack of being heard.

It is generally extremist arms interested in destabilizing India to strengthen other regional powers (usually Pakistan).

The goal of much of these terrorist attacks simply end with ... no India, not "we demand change to policies in a reasonable way"

[skeledrew]

My read[0] suggests it's a combination of religious, political, ethnic and economic issues, which are all inherently social things. From the causes of the splintering into 2 countries to what's happening today. And social issues crop up when the needs of some group in a society aren't being met, because they aren't being properly heard. I've seen things in the news about Modi; he doesn't sound like the type to listen to/heed anyone not in his circle.

[0] https://www.visionofhumanity.org/terrorism-counterterrorism-...

[inigyou]

"hey pakistani spies if you bring us Pakistan's plans we'll give you a hundred thousand bucks"

[numpad0]

> Honestly no idea what I’d do if I were in government.

Spending crazy amounts in public education, healthcare, and nuclear arsenal?