51–60 of 281 posts
Crime will be the price that a free society pays. We need a certain tolerance of petty crime if we are going to truest be free.
I think human nature or whatever you want to call it is always going to mean that some number of people don’t follow The Rules to some degree, and that achieving 100% perfect rule adherence should not necessarily be the one and only goal of society.
Isn't it obvious how the widespread knowledge that the government can read everything you do online - your FB posts, your emails, your texts - contributes to the erosion of trust in government and institutions? As an anecdote, I went to DEFCON last year. I was at a blackjack table and surrounded by midwestern salt-of-the-earth types. I had my badge on which flashed lights, and someone asked if I was "one of those com…
Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty and we have not been vigilant.
Crime will be the price that a free society pays. We need a certain tolerance of petty crime if we are going to truest be free.
Crime will be the price that a free society pays. We need a certain tolerance of petty crime if we are going to truest be free.
Surveillance societies have a lot more crime, it’s just carried out by a single set of uniformed groups.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 1. How is this really different to government-mandated microphones and cameras in your house, school, workplace, etc? It's different because you're voluntarily giving information to a third party (Facebook), which the government is asking to share with police. You may not agree with it, but that's the difference. It's a pretty substantial one.
So if I rent my apartment, the government can compel a landlord to place recording devices in the residence without serving me a warrant?
With governments consistently landing on the wrong side of good, no wonder people seek comfort in things like qanon.
The rapture will be here any day.
1. How is this really different to government-mandated microphones and cameras in your house, school, workplace, etc? 2. What’s the endgame here? Open-source encrypted messaging software is widely available. The cat is out of the bag. Every country on Earth could outlaw the technology and it would still be trivially easy for criminals to use it. Do the people behind these proposals not see that?
> it would still be trivially easy for criminals to use it Maybe it's not about the criminals? Governments have a tendency to seek to increase control of citizens, surveillance being part of it. Saying it's about "tools for terrorists and child traffickers" is the traditional rethorical ploy no-one can argue against. You wouldn't want to protect child traffickers would you?