That’s romanticizing history. When communication via post became economically feasible for a large number of citizens its surveillance began–in the 19th century. I’ll make a more contentious point: religion played the role of what modern-states now call domestic intelligence. The state’s desire to control (that’s what surveillance is about) has always been there. It’s an intrinsic aspect of a state. Technology only allows what would have been economically unfeasible to now enter the realm of feasibility.
What one should take away from this article is that: Signal is a central point that can be compromised silently; Signal has the power to revoke your access to its software at any time (leaving the Canadian ‘market’). Both point to Signal’s users being rubes. They are not in control of the software and are subjugated by a private dictatorship branded ‘Signal’. Users should not be concerned about the government’s will here (it’s the same; it has not changed). Users should be concerned that the private dictatorship–that they paradoxically hold dear–is a private dictatorship.
Signal users yearn to be subjugated and told sweet lies.
I think this response ignores the whole software distribution aspect, like phone apps have to be downloaded from the Play Store or whatever… if Signal has an office in Canada, maybe the employees would be forced to comply with the request or face legal troubles? If Signal doesn’t comply, Canada will just force Google and Apple to cease distribution, which I imagine is what would happen. I’m sure people would still be free to download it on their own accord if they could get a hold of it and get it running.
That’s romanticizing history. When communication via post became economically feasible for a large number of citizens its surveillance began–in the 19th century. I’ll make a more contentious point: religion played the role of what modern-states now call domestic intelligence. The state’s desire to control (that’s what surveillance is about) has always been there. It’s an intrinsic aspect of a state. Technology only allows what would have been economically unfeasible to now enter the realm of feasibility.
What one should take away from this article is that: Signal is a central point that can be compromised silently; Signal has the power to revoke your access to its software at any time (leaving the Canadian ‘market’). Both point to Signal’s users being rubes. They are not in control of the software and are subjugated by a private dictatorship branded ‘Signal’. Users should not be concerned about the government’s will here (it’s the same; it has not changed). Users should be concerned that the private dictatorship–that they paradoxically hold dear–is a private dictatorship.
Signal users yearn to be subjugated and told sweet lies.
I think this response ignores the whole software distribution aspect, like phone apps have to be downloaded from the Play Store or whatever… if Signal has an office in Canada, maybe the employees would be forced to comply with the request or face legal troubles? If Signal doesn’t comply, Canada will just force Google and Apple to cease distribution, which I imagine is what would happen. I’m sure people would still be free to download it on their own accord if they could get a hold of it and get it running.
But idk?