re: "The Signal App and the Danger of Privacy at All Costs"

re: "The Signal App and the Danger of Privacy at All Costs" (The New York Times, December 28, 2022)

100 years ago, before the wonders of modern technology made the world a vastly better place for almost all in liberal democracies, the only way for the state's lawful authorities to get information about what someone had said to another was for that other, perhaps a spy or perhaps just a conscientious citizen, to report the speech or hand over the correspondence. 

This has not changed with the arrival of Signal. 

The content of conversations on Signal can, unless burnt like a handwritten letter, be recorded and shared by the parties involved in that conversation. If someone has a Signal record discussing, say, child sexual abuse, they are as free as a priest, bishop, reverend, imam, monk, pope or police officer to share that information with law enforcement when lawfully ordered to or when their conscience dictates they do so. And the fact that Signal cannot be easily hacked greatly strengthens the worth of such documentary evidence handed over.  

Tools such as Signal merely restore the option of having a conversation as private as could be had 100 years ago by walking down the road 100 yards from potentially eavesdropping others. 

Meanwhile, for those not blessed with living in liberal democracies, it is essential to support such powerful tools for privacy against abusive surveillance states, which states  are all to real and numerous. 

Mr Blackman's arguments in this opinion piece are lame at best, and his proposals likely a dangerous threat to many.  

_______________________________

The above comment was submitted by Felix Qui to The New York Times article.

It is published there at https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/28/opinion/jack-dorseys-twitter-signal-privacy.html#commentsContainer&permid=122264118:122264118