561–570 of 570 posts
After years of ever-deepening privacy violations in the US, I'm surprised that this hasn't passed yet. I mean, the government already legally demands that all the large corporations make them a copy of all of your communications that pass through them. So why should it be legal for you to encrypt any of it without them being able to decrypt it? How are they supposed to spy on you effectively with just the meta-data,…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are only a few hundred people in Congress. Even if all of them were partaking this still wouldn't be a societal impact level issue.
Your comment seemed to imply that a network of pedophiles in Congress was tailoring these laws specifically to weaken law enforcement's ability to prosecute people like them. That would certainly lead to a societal impact, as it would by design empower and entrench child pornographers and pedophiles across the board.
Obviously this sucks as a proposal but... how do we stop the child porn?
What you can crackdown on are the producers.
You can infiltrate the places where it is originally disseminated.
You can run face and voice recognition on the content.
You can flip lower level mass distributors into informants to gather evidence on the producers.
For rapists.
You can train teachers and counsellors to identify children who have been abused and to handle other psychological problems like depression which are endemic in our society.
You can train police officers to better spot criminals on a basis other than race or status.
You can better fund the CPS.
You can conduct assessments on parents who appear to be mentally unstable.
If you want to convince your friends they should support encryption, here's how I like to get past the "nothing to hide" argument. Imagine we're sitting at a bar, chatting. None of us have anything to hide. Then the government passes a law that all conversations must be streamed on Youtube Live, so an agent comes in, sets up a camera at our table, and starts streaming. We still don't "have anything to hide". We're ju…
Strong encryption is another tool of the rich and powerful to help evade public oversight and scrutiny. Unpopular thought here, cuz, well, most people commenting here are the top wealthy 5-10%, the rich and powerful. It would be a cognitive dissonance to blieve otherwise.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are only a few hundred people in Congress. Even if all of them were partaking this still wouldn't be a societal impact level issue.
Your comment seemed to imply that a network of pedophiles in Congress was tailoring these laws specifically to weaken law enforcement's ability to prosecute people like them. That would certainly lead to a societal impact, as it would by design empower and entrench child pornographers and pedophiles across the board.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The best argument I ever heard was: "Would you give up your right to free speech just because you have nothing important to say? No? Then why would you give up your right to privacy just because you have nothing to hide?"
While I fully support strong privacy & encryption, there is absolutely no logic in this argument because it tries to build upon an unrelated hypothetical. A stronger argument should have tried to explain how this violates the constitution: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/03/earn-it-act-violates-c...
* Indicate that you have a right * Which you probably don't have a pressing need for at the moment * But the lack of a need in the immediate future doesn't mean you won't ever have a need for it
The only real difference between the two, as far as I can tell, is the actual right you're not-using-but-still-protecting.
What am I missing?
I cannot believe that the one thing we have bipartisan consensus on is destroying strong encryption. I guess I’m biased since this is essentially my whole livelihood, but this is crazy, right?
I can. Our representative government represent corporations and the deep state, in the original Peter Dale Scott sense of the term (as opposed to the more recent abuse of it), and not the people. They have continually made moves like this, in a boiling frog fashion. Until we the people wake up from the two party divide and conquer system, very little will change, excepting very rare circumstances of pressure exerted…
INTJ?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can. Our representative government represent corporations and the deep state, in the original Peter Dale Scott sense of the term (as opposed to the more recent abuse of it), and not the people. They have continually made moves like this, in a boiling frog fashion. Until we the people wake up from the two party divide and conquer system, very little will change, excepting very rare circumstances of pressure exerted…
Dear lord man. You've actually thought about this. I'm flabbergasted to see someone actually attempting to solve this problem. Out-grouping for the sake of sharing logic. INTJ?
I've thought about it because I honestly considered running for POTUS, but even that is because I consider my oath the the constitution still valid even though I've been out of the military for a long time, though I'm still recovering my brain.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's complete BS. Speeds have not been updated to match the technical characteristics of modern cars. There's a reason why Germany doesn't even have a speed limit - the limit itself is pointless. They only fine you for dangerous driving.
This is just misinformation. Of course, in most places, Germany has speed limits. For example, the speed limit within cities is generally 50km/h, around schools and in residentials areas it's 30km/h and outside of towns, it's usually somewhere between 60 and 100km/h. The only exception to this are highways where, in fact, 70% of the time, there is no general speed limit. Even so, specific sections will always have sp…
Somehow, it doesn't stop all these frickin' Audis from doing it. (It's always Audis.)