zlacker

One thing from the blink-dev discussion caught my eye:

> Anything we might decide would ultimately be influenced by the larger societal debate around privacy (regulations etc.) since perfect privacy means perfect immunity for criminals.

Ensuring that your devices don't spy on you on behalf of a government or company does not imply "perfect immunity for criminals".

Putting aside attestation for the moment, consider this: Modern enclave driven device encryption (and the self-destructive passcode limitations that often accompany it), for example, could be likened to designing a very good safe that can automatically destroy its contents if it is breached. Do we require governments to have their own keys to all such safes sold?

>>rezona+(OP)
It's funny how they frame laws and regulations designed to prevent companies from abusing people's rights as a "larger societal debate". Yes, the debate is between people who want companies to respect their rights and companies who don't wanna. That's not a debate and framing it as such is just an obvious attempt to narrativize their stance for lobbyists. Also "perfect privacy" is a red herring (binary fallacy or what is it called?) because the compromise between no privacy and perfect privacy doesn't have to be "Google gets to harvest users' data against their wishes".

>>rezona+(OP)
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

The problematic dude's disdain for humanity aside, the quote serves as a good reminder that the "but the criminals!" argument is often used and rarely justified.