• Diurnambule@jlai.lu
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 hours ago

    Yeah but contrary to these listed, the judge know the guardian is a newspaper, they shouldn’t be able to make him/her afraid in the same way they did.

    • Ulrich@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      7 hours ago

      Yeah but contrary to these listed, the judge know the guardian is a newspaper

      The logic does not check out. Signal isn’t going to integrate a news section and then suddenly be exempt from this regulation.

      • Diurnambule@jlai.lu
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        5 hours ago

        It show you didn’t read, I am explaining the article piece by piece. They used the lost a gave you to convince a judge it was a terrorist behavior. It is not forbidden to crypt things. And they would not have been able to convince a judge the news application guardian is a terrorist tool. And I am bad a English so I am trying to resume a English article to you in broken English. I am sure I use the wrong word and as long as you don’t read you can keep playing me. You are taking more time debating things I have an hard time explain than reading the article. Do you wan me to copy paste in entirely here so you can avoid one click ?

        • Ulrich@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 hours ago

          I read the entire thing. I don’t need it explained to me. It’s clear just by looking at it that they’re targeting all encrypted communications.

          And they would not have been able to convince a judge the news application guardian is a terrorist tool.

          I think it’s pretty obvious that they could.