This is just a more complex way of saying “think of the children!”
We get it, you don’t understand why there is a legitimate reason why someone would not want the government to have access to every communication that they send- because rest assured that is the subtext of this order. The French authorities, and most likely the rest of the global authorities, want to be able to peer into what you’re saying so their control is absolute, eliminating wrong-think even in private communications.
I am not an extremist. I have no terrorist ties. I am just a man who wants my country to respect the 4th amendment and I’m deeply distrustful of any government that doesn’t wish to live up to that.
In my example I have said that the authorities should access a single room because there is the strong suspect that who is inside is a terrlrost (or whatever it is) and the police, once authorised by the judical power (independent and based on law) that has examined all the suspects, should access that single room. If you don't let police access that single room you are covering that terrorist and imho it's a peoblem for the community if this is systematic.
There is also a thing: if due to technological reasons it is not possible to restrict access to a single room, so other room must be umder surveillance, I will be in the front line to say no, that is against my privacy. It's not about the freedom to talk, if for you is ok you can talk freely but there is a risk for your privacy because the government or the society that host that service can access your messages (as if this is not happening!).
This is just a more complex way of saying “think of the children!”
We get it, you don’t understand why there is a legitimate reason why someone would not want the government to have access to every communication that they send- because rest assured that is the subtext of this order. The French authorities, and most likely the rest of the global authorities, want to be able to peer into what you’re saying so their control is absolute, eliminating wrong-think even in private communications.
I am not an extremist. I have no terrorist ties. I am just a man who wants my country to respect the 4th amendment and I’m deeply distrustful of any government that doesn’t wish to live up to that.
In my example I have said that the authorities should access a single room because there is the strong suspect that who is inside is a terrlrost (or whatever it is) and the police, once authorised by the judical power (independent and based on law) that has examined all the suspects, should access that single room. If you don't let police access that single room you are covering that terrorist and imho it's a peoblem for the community if this is systematic.
There is also a thing: if due to technological reasons it is not possible to restrict access to a single room, so other room must be umder surveillance, I will be in the front line to say no, that is against my privacy. It's not about the freedom to talk, if for you is ok you can talk freely but there is a risk for your privacy because the government or the society that host that service can access your messages (as if this is not happening!).