cookie019

I saw a message asking why serious attacks on privacy have started simultaneously around the world right now. Personally, I can't say that they have just begun, as surveillance without warrants has always been conducted. The issue is more about mass surveillance, which has been happening almost since the advent of computers. I can't say that today's situation is that different *in this regard. *

As for the question, technology has become much more advanced; the storage capacity of devices has increased exponentially, and the efficiency of processors has improved dramatically. In short, in the past, even if there was a desire to store all phone conversations in the world or surveillance camera footage, there was no physical capability to do so, as it would have required an area the size of the USA to store everything on floppy disks and army of secret agents who will process it.

To sum up, laws began to be applied when it became possible to enforce them. Now, with the capability to scan everything using large language models (LLMs), they are starting to implement these laws, and that's all there is to it.

does anyone have something to add?

I would like to express concern about the future of the Signal messenger. Although Signal currently has a significantly smaller audience than WhatsApp, there are existential risks associated with the messenger covering a larger number of users. Is it rational to say that the goal of this messenger is to be used by the largest number of users, so let's assume for a moment that Signal was able to achieve its mission and most WhatsApp users switched to Signal - I know this is right now unrealistic, but even 30% of users would be an enormous, huge number. Thus, what is the future of the messenger when it starts organizing communications for 1 billion users worldwide?

Would it be rational to assume that counterintelligence forces and special police will send their agents to the organization as undercover workers to sabotage the work and embed backdoors during companies in the context of company growth and staff expansion in this scenario? The question is rhetorical.

I would like to hear the response of the company's president to this existential threat, and to thank for their work.