SleafordMod @ SleafordMod @feddit.uk

Posts

61

Comments

271

Joined

5 mo. ago

I guess I think of it like bugging a phone. The technology for bugging phones has been around for a long time, but that doesn't mean the authorities are bugging everybody's phones all the time. Even if they can theoretically listen to everyone's conversations, that doesn't mean they are always listening. There would be too many conversations to listen to.

I guess it's not the kind of thing I normally listen to, but I came across Jobseeker on YouTube and thought it was good. That feeling of authority figures being patronising and belittling and you just want them to piss off.

Maybe people just use what's popular. Telegram is pretty popular in some countries even though I don't think they have end-to-end encryption by default.

Anyway I guess I don't know what the answer is. Personally I would probably still use iMessage and WhatsApp even if I knew the companies behind them could potentially read my messages by decrypting them. If there's a proper system in place so that messages are only read when there's a court warrant, it's probably unlikely my boring messages to friends and family would be spied on by anybody.

Maybe I need to send more interesting messages and then I would care about the privacy of them a bit more.

Fair points. Also I guess practically big companies like Apple would never allow a situation where their encryption is compromised while encryption on smaller platforms like Signal isn't. Apple etc would spend billions lobbying so such a situation never happens.

I like the deadpan style. Yeah he's had quite a few TV shows. If people keep offering you work and you find the work pretty straightforward and you get paid, why not take it, I guess.

HMD are Finnish. I think their phones are assembled in China but that's the case for many smartphones (e.g. iPhones).

However I noticed that some HMD phones use Unisoc CPUs, and Unisoc are Chinese. I don't know how much that matters. Other HMD phones use Qualcomm CPUs - Qualcomm are American.

I think Romesh is alright. I liked the travel shows he did for the BBC.

Maybe only the biggest companies should be required to be able to decrypt certain messages if a court warrant is produced. Privacy fans could use services exempt from this requirement, like Signal. But there are laypeople who just use iMessage because it's the default, and you could catch criminals sending bad stuff over iMessage.

I think there are valid concerns on both sides of the argument... but I am just imagining if you have a group of violent people planning an attack over iMessage, I want law enforcement to be able to read those messages.

I don't want end-to-end encryption entirely outlawed. But for the biggest platforms from massive corporations, maybe those corporations could keep their encryption keys stored with high security somewhere, so they can decrypt particular messages if a court warrant is issued.

People who are uneasy about that could go to a more privacy-focused platform like Signal. Some criminals would do that too, but at least something would be done to catch criminals on the popular platforms.

I'm not comparing privacy fans to paedophiles and terrorists, that's not what I mean. What I mean is that I want serious criminals to be caught.

I think properly private technology is good to protect yourself from an authoritarian government for example. You could use something like Signal for messaging (I've not used it, but apparently it's good).

But the big popular platforms like WhatsApp and iMessage, which many laypeople use just because they're popular - on those platforms I think it makes sense for law enforcement to be able to access messages, but only in certain circumstances. So maybe Apple could keep the encryption key and they could decrypt someone's messages if a court warrant is issued.

I'm not saying end-to-end encryption should be entirely outlawed. Hopefully services like Signal would still exist. Sure, some criminals might jump to those platforms, but you could still catch some at least, who use big services like iMessage.

Maybe they're smart enough to choose someone who is either British or who has a flawless British accent.

But I do bet they'll start doing spin off TV shows on Amazon Prime, like Disney has done with Star Wars. If it helps them milk the franchise for more money then surely they'd do it.

Fair enough. I guess I could possibly forgive an American actor as long as they can do an extremely good British accent. If the accent sounds at all American I will be annoyed.

I thought Pierce Brosnan was good as Bond and his accent was fine (he's Irish of course - I don't think he has British citizenship).

The outrage from certain sections of the public would be pretty huge. According to them, Bond must always be white and male.

I wasn't meaning to criticise any particular country, I just meant that goals aren't inherently a good thing.

Regarding China and the US, I think both countries have a lot to offer, and there will be decent people from each country, but I don't think I'm a fan of the current government of either country.

No I haven't, in fact I think I only know one song by them... good song though (Jobseeker). I should probably check out more of their stuff.

I just chose this username because I was trying to think of something randomly and it popped into my head.

True. People keep speculating that Putin has some kind of leverage over Trump, like compromising information, to get Trump to dance to the Kremlin's tune. But I think it's more likely to be like you say - Trump just admires Putin because Trump wants to be a dictator just like Putin.

I don't know if you're joking or not, but as a Brit, if the next Bond actor is American, I will be very disappointed.

Germany does have black people though, e.g. Antonio Rudiger, a German footballer who plays for Real Madrid:

Bold of you to assume that I know anybody in real life.

I don't think goals are inherently good... Hitler had goals...