Why does The New York Times let people like Reid Blackman with an obvious self-serving agenda (a consultant to government organizations concerned with apps like Signal Messenger inhibiting their ability to snoop on you) publish terrible pieces like this one about Signal?
The moment you take into account how many governments in the world pose a real danger to citizens with democratic values all of the author’s arguments fall apart like a house of cards.
For a person talking about the need to understand nuance, the entire article is written from the perspective of someone living in the United States. Try looking at it from the perspective of a Russian who is not supporting Putin’s war in a country that no longer even pretends to have any democratic values and has turned into a complete surveillance police state.
Even in democratic, lawful countries like the U.S., there’s a danger of access to private information being misused. There’s also no guarantee that a country that is democratic today will remain so forever. We just had a president who tried to stay in office despite losing the election.
Spare your tired “what about the children and the terrorists” arguments for tech-illiterate people, Reid. Signal is absolutely correct in its unshakable, black-and-white principle. It’s the only way to maintain personal privacy. There can be no compromises you’re calling for.
The moment you introduce backdoors nefarious agents WILL use them. That goes for government entities in totalitarian countries, rogue elements in government structures of democratic countries, and eventually criminals who are going to bribe government employees to gain access to it.
P.S. If like me, you disagree with Reid’s New York Times opinion piece but haven’t downloaded and installed Signal yet you can do so by clicking this link.