Hacker News Reader

Comment by macspoofing | Hacker News Reader

There is no corporate entity supplying terrorists with air. This is why this consumer-based end-to-end encrypted chat messenger space isn't going to go anywhere. Telegram is delusional if they think nations will let them operate this kind of a business. Every terrorist attack where Telegram is used will paint a bigger and bigger bullseye on their backs. The media will get in on it. The public will get in on it. Lawmakers will get in on it. Hacker News will get in on it.

The witch hunt against Facebook shows how this will look though the particulars will be different. At the end of the day, Telegram has devs that need to eat and servers to pay for and at the very least all revenue sources will be denied to them.

View on HN

> Every terrorist attack where Telegram is used will paint a bigger and bigger bullseye on their backs. The media will get in on it. The public will get in on it. Lawmakers will get in on it. Hacker News will get in on it.

Here I was, thinking that we here at HN aimed higher.

> The witch hunt against Facebook shows how this will look though the particulars will be different.

Witch hunt usually implies baseless, made up accusations.

When it comes to Facebook I'd phrase it differently; maybe something about consequences or justice?

>Here I was, thinking that we here at HN aimed higher.

Why would you think that? Nothing special about HN - it's a collection of humans from a very specific culture.

>Witch hunt usually implies baseless, made up accusations.

Not only. It also implies widely inflated and hyperbolic accusations.

This in amny ways is analogous to the gun debate in the United States. Everytime there is a major shooting, there are calls for certain types of guns to be banned. Every time there is a terrorist attack coordinated by an encrypted chat app, there will be calls to wither ban it or have a backdoor.

Your comment entirely and completely ignores the express intent and purpose of the objects you compare, which makes the comparison invalid.

The parent post is a nice example of the type of underhanded rhetoric that will eventually be used to sway the public in favor of banning encryption.

Pretend your target is inherently evil, and can only be used for inherently evil things. (Terrorism! Child abuse! Piracy!) Then you're perfectly set up to vilify anyone who dares to question your position.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com