>>8It's the exact opposite of what you say because you don't distinguish between your control over your own property and the government's control over you. Safe languages give you absolute power over your own machine so these groups can't do anything to you.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/12/nhs-hit-major-cyber-attack-hackers-demanding-ransom/If we used safe languages, this would be as hard as hacking a filing cabinet.
They'll use the same argument as done with terrorism, drugs, and porn to ban anything that could possibly be used to rebel.
This is what the C promoters want. They want to use laws against you instead of fixing computers. Just like terrorists are allowed to enter Western countries and they blame guns, knives, and trucks so they can ban and restrict them. With safe languages, we wouldn't need as many laws, and if there weren't all of these Middle Eastern immigrants, there wouldn't be as many laws about terrorist attacks because they wouldn't happen. The people who want you to use C are the same ones who want to ban encryption and put backdoors in your hardware.
"Those who give up freedom for security deserve neither."
Programs don't have freedom. They are commands to a machine, which is property. People have freedom. Secure programming languages keep your computer (your property) safe from the dangerous people and groups you are talking about. Secure languages are like securing your home against all intruders so you have the freedom to do whatever you want with your own property, while that so-called "security" is about giving up freedom so the government could enter your house and spy on you whenever they want. They're polar opposites.