They are generally mutually beneficial. Counter surveillance benefits from supporting privacy prevents malicious actors from exploiting the members of a nation. So I lean heavily towards supporting privacy as a matter of supporting both. The exceptions are in the true extremes in which, even after serious deliberation in a democratically agreed apon system, the demand for exposure is too high to ignore.

Fuck my country. My needs come first.

P/S: OK, for saying that I might disappear soon. It was nice knowing y’all.

I think that the right to private digital communication is more essential to the security of a free state than gun ownership.

This just happens in America fuck yeah

The gvmt in my country (UK) have stoked fears about security to pass, and begin the process of passing, various bits of legislation to curtail both activity and privacy - laws to make strike action nearly impossible, laws to class any demonstration or protest as contravening public order, the online safety bill to break encryption, laws to criminalise dissent and perceived ‘anti britishness’ and are introducing plans to roll out more and more facial recognition systems everywhere.

Of course there is online crime, including CSAM and terrorists organising shit, but the legislation they’ve both passed and are planning to pass does nothing to stop these things e.g. making Signal break users encrypted messages won’t prevent CSAM as the abuse has already happened to the victim, it’s also trivial for anyone with a basic knowledge to set up their own encrypted service so that’s where they’ll go. Lastly the people it will affect is the faith of those using Signal et al quite legitimately.

What the gvmt are doing is assuming we’re all criminals and that it’s therefore totally legitimate to pry into every corner of our lives. What they should be doing is enacting legislation that will work to prevent things like CSAM from happening in the first place.

I have been pondering this as of late and as i am new to the privacy space I only have recently learnt of my countries ant-encryptions laws (Australia). See i like the idea of national security and sure i have nothing to hide but it is a matter of principle why is MY data not mine? And if my governments is allowed to see all of my files and internet history that scares me sure they are not to tyrannical now but what happens if that changes this is the first step to then begin to be way more intrusive and it gets all 1984 up in here with thought police.

You can have my data if you can find and crack the encryption.

So Israel was monitoring everything happening in Gaza in the name of national security. There was no privacy there. How did it work out for them?

deleted by creator

How are they opposed?

Depending on how you define national security they aren’t.

You can default to privacy while allowing court ordered exceptions. That seems reasonable and effective, and seemingly has worked fine for along time.

National security is just the thing people in government say when they’re doing something they know they shouldn’t be doing.

National security is never a justification for anything.

privacy comes first, what happens on my device stays on my device. and if i send a funny cat picture to my mom, you bet your ass i’m gonna use a VPN and the most private messenger i know of.

if someone does a crime, they will have enough evidence without being able to look at chatlogs.

Get a real fucking search warrant. No blanket warrants, no rubber stamps.

I don’t subscribe to the idea that national security and privacy are mutually exclusive. I think its a load of horseshit used to get people to give up their privacy willingly.

Law enforcement and governments have more then enough weapons and tech to do their job without trampling on privacy.

Individual privacy, always. If they can’t get in, that ain’t my problem. Idgaf WHAT it is, my rights don’t disappear because other people are assholes