• sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    35
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 hours ago

    Yup. The Apple-FBI encryption dispute started under Obama, as did the Snowden leak.

    Neither party is particularly pro-encryption, because governments in general see encryption by the public a hurdle for their operations (i.e. you don’t need encryption if you have nothing to hide).

    Encryption isn’t a partisan issue, and my understanding is that both major parties suck about equally on this issue.

    • surph_ninja@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 hours ago

      It’s a wonder they’re not also trying to outlaw printing presses at this point. They openly believe that we are not entitled to private conversations.

      • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        8 hours ago

        It seems we’re moving that direction. Physical media in video games is becoming less and less common, more and more stores are digital only (and Google made a deal w/ Mastercard to get that data), and ebooks are likely to overtake physical books in the near-ish future.

        Guess where all that data ends up? The government can just pay retailers to get transaction data, so if the police wants to dig up dirt on you, it’s easier than ever.

        That’s pretty messed up IMO, and I’m not happy with this trend given where privacy protections are at these days…

        • surph_ninja@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          8 hours ago

          Yep. We need a very strict law to prevent the government from partnering with private companies to get around the fourth amendment. The third party doctrine has obliterated our privacy rights.

          • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            8 hours ago

            Agreed. If there’s anything we should collectively push for, it’s a constitutional recognition to a right to privacy. That’s what Roe v Wade was based on, and it was overturned because it wasn’t constitutionally defensible. The 4th amendment sadly isn’t sufficient, we need to take it a step further.

            • futatorius@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              14 minutes ago

              The Ninth Amendment, if actually followed, would put the burden on the government to prove that something was not a right, rather than just denying it because it wasn’t enumerated in the Constitution. The current Supreme Court has directly contradicted the Ninth by claiming that only enumerated rights are really rights. Except when they make up new ones like corporate personhood.