Hacker News Reader

Comment by _zqha | Hacker News Reader

What's wrong with police using your software? Are public safety and a functioning society something to oppose?

It's not like they're selling to the CCP - these are democratic European countries.

There's a very reasonable double standard between private citizens using encrypted messaging tools and their ostensible public servants using them in a public capacity.

Put another way: there's no sense in which the public is made safer or society is made to function more wholly when the police are less accountable due to un-subpoenable communications.

As long as the encrypted communications are logged and available in accordance with public records-retention policies, using a good encryption system sounds like a good thing, no?

Sure. But that isn't end-to-end encryption; that's a weird key escrow thing. It would be a little strange for Matrix to officially support that kind of use case, since it's indistinguishable in the general case from dangerous, privacy-compromising forms of key escrow[1].

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clipper_chip

Govs use Red Hat Enterprise Linux, is Red Hat inherently bad? What else would they use? Fucking WhatsApp like the UK gov during the pandemic?

I didn't say Matrix was "inherently bad." Where's that coming from?

If you're asking me what I think the police should use for police business: I don't care, as long as it can be made accountable to the public. The technology behind it literally does not matter to me, so long as that constraint is satisfied.

I think I must have hit reply on the wrong comment on my phone as it doesn't make sense in context.

Sorry!

The German army also uses the Matrix protocol [1] and I don't see, why they shouldn't or how Matrix could stop them, the Matrix protocol is open after all. Instead I think this shows that Matrix is secure and so well tested that it is good enough for the military (aka. good enough for me).

[1] https://element.io/case-studies/bundeswehr

> Are public safety and a functioning society something to oppose?

To some, that seems to be the case.

Most of the replies I read misunderstood the wording. But some took a clear ideological stance against providing services to the police.

It’s those kind of interactions that made me leave Mastodon in the end. I’m neither right wing nor left wing, I’m just pro-common sense, and people who flaunt their ideology through megaphones make me hate this planet.

Common sense dictates that giving more power and safety to governments is not a good thing. Especially when said governments already attack innocent civilians, and will use that power to further harm others.

Common sense doesn’t dictate that. Ideology does. For every argument for it, there’s an argument against it - the disagreement between the two sides of it is rarely on the facts, but on the weight one holds on various things.

And that’s where ideology comes in.

If civilians have access to private communication, and can pay for enhanced features, why should govt organisations not? OTOH why are the implications on transparency? It’s a hard one.

Is personal privacy more important than the ability to prevent domestic terror and the distribution of material that we can all (I’d hope) agree is abhorrent? That’s not a trivial question.

The list could go on. There are arguments on both sides and they’re far from settled. Me, I just get fed up of seeing people adopt these ideas as if they’re gospel and (as in the mastodon thread) start screaming fascism, as if they have any idea what it is.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com