• grabyourmotherskeys@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I do not disagree with your basic premise and I completely disagree with the Nebraska prosecution but I think people need to understand that everything we do online it’s monitored.

    If they can’t get the actual message data, they will use meta data (e.g. two parties sending and receiving data packets that match in size and time of occurrence and protocol and are known to each other) or whatever.

    If you are doing something you are worried about other people knowing about, do not use any digital form of communication. Full stop. There is no privacy online.

    • zaph@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      1 year ago

      You’re absolutely right, there’s no privacy online. But there are significantly better alternatives that offer end to end encryption and sometimes digital communication is required.

      • grabyourmotherskeys@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yes, I agree, for example credit card transaction processing or business communication with trade secrets in it. For most people doing things they want kept private but which is not illegal, basic encryption is great.

        If I were going to plot the overthrow of a government, I’d try to as much as possible offline.