> Child safety experts, policymakers and law enforcement have argued encryption obstructs efforts to rescue child sex-trafficking victims and the prosecution of predators. Privacy advocates praised the decision for shielding users from surveillance by governments and law enforcement.
Seriously. They're practically mocking "privacy advocates" as criminals trying to evade law enforcement, whereas the other side of the argument is supported by a veritable gathering of paragons. I did not expect this kind of naked emotional appeal from The Guardian, but maybe that's my fault. And note that this is not an op-ed.
Seriously. They're practically mocking "privacy advocates" as criminals trying to evade law enforcement, whereas the other side of the argument is supported by a veritable gathering of paragons. I did not expect this kind of naked emotional appeal from The Guardian, but maybe that's my fault. And note that this is not an op-ed.
Edit: I meant op-ed, not editorial.