this post was submitted on 20 Dec 2024
635 points (98.6% liked)
Technology
60105 readers
2017 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
@return2ozma @technology
10 years ago, the Feds wanted backdoors to all of phones so they could read all of our text messages. Now, the Feds want everyone not to use software that has backdoors so the Chinese cannot read our phones. The Feds don't want competition.
Absolutely. They were so arrogant they never thought it would happen to us. After all, we are in charge of our own networks so why would we expect the enemy to be at the gates? Let's make those gates out of cardboard so it's easier to spy on everyone.
Of course then you have things like CALEA mandating a back door, you have cheap telecom companies that will happily buy cheap lowest bidder Chinese hardware and install it "everywhere* without concern for security (after all, it's not their data being stolen) and now the enemy isn't just at the gates but inside the walls.
A decade ago, making sure the feds could read everyone's mail was the national security priority. Suddenly when the Chinese can read everyone's mail, good security is the national security priority.
It's too bad there was no way to predict this in advance. Oh wait...
The backdoors they use are there for freedom and justice, the backdoors the "others" use are tools of evil and security risks!
"They're the same picture"
Braindead take of the day.
Your comment applies more to your own than the one you responded to. It's a crazy form of recursion.
Nah that's just your own wishful thinking.
For real, I bet this guy didn't back the "Definitely Don't Maybe Not Almost Probably Save The Children ACT."
did you forget to add "/s" or do you really believe what you wrote?
Sometimes sarcasm is clear enough without signalling it. I guess not for everyone.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe's_law
It was a joke, bruh!
Edit: Huh. Guess people downvoting didn’t read up on Poe’s Law posted above. Shocked! Well, not that shocked.
For clarity, I was being satirical.
Yes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scare_quotes
-signed, DefinitelyNotAFed@Federal.Bureau