zlacker

Your mistake is assuming good faith on behalf of the government who arrests thousands of people for social media posts. Beyond faith, they are incredibly incompetent and this data will be stolen.

>>0xy+(OP)
You miss GP’s point. They’re not assuming good faith, they’re pointing out that the government already knows identity credentials and can, encrypted or not, quite easily correlate digital activity with those credentials.

The question isn’t whether the government can/will identify and track you. They do, in good faith or bad. This is unfortunate and attempts to allow them to decrypt or acquire additional data about citizens’ activities (like chat control) should be opposed, but identity/activity tracking is omnipresent and irreversible.

The question is whether identity credentials should be available which reduce the risk of additonal credential theft or bad-faith action (e.g. by other entities stealing non-secure-for-digital-use credentials like passports).

>>0xy+(OP)
Just because it’s social media doesn’t excuse inciting violence or hate speech. I’m not going to claim that every arrest in the UK due to social media posts was just, but I also disagree that social media should permit unrestricted speech.

>>0xy+(OP)
They didn’t arrest anyone for “making social media posts”. The police (not the government) arrested people due to the content in the posts breaking an existing law. Big difference.