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?
You don't have to mandate something that people have done voluntarily. Mobile phones are cameras and microphones in every house, school and workplace. All the mobile standards have "legal intercept" provisions, which basically allow law enforcement to listen to your conversations / read your text-messages. This is just a demand to go back to the status quo ante, where Government had unrestricted access to all your phone conversations and mail if they chose to.
I would also wager that there is a non-zero chance that the baseband processor of all phones has a backdoor, which is why the US can't allow phones to predominantly use Chinese made baseband processors. The baseband has access to your microphone and camera and is mostly out of control of the application processor.
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 don't accept that, and I won't accept it for my community. I live in a crime-ridden country. Here, we as honest citizens are building fences, walls, gated-communities, electric fencing, metal bars around our doors and windows, hiring private security, etc to combat the crime that the wider society is tacitly tolerating. People want security, and we're willing to forego things such as "privacy" in return for that. N…
So what happens if the security is successful, and the level of crime decreases substantially, and now the government uses its newfound powers of surveillance against the law-abiding populace?
Is there an internet meme (equivalent to a Godwin's law) about "back-doors 'coz of terrists-n-kiddiepron"? I was expecting for it to feature in the article and sure enough there it was. The narrative that "bad people use X" becomes "bad people used X to do thing Y and the government was helpless to stop it, omg!" in various echo chambers. Soon, news reports start appearing with "Thing X was used by bad person. If onl…
> Is there an internet meme (equivalent to a Godwin's law) about "back-doors 'coz of terrists-n-kiddiepron"?
Firearms make it easy/way easier to kill/seriously injure * a large number of people * from a distance * with basically no effort With knives on the other hand it's hard (especially for untrained attackers) killing/injuring * even a low number of people (IF even more than one) * from arm's reach * with large physical effort. Following that firearm restriction to those who may actually need them (law enforcement etc.)…
That doesn't matter. How many people does something have to be able to kill before being banned? The truck attack in France was deadlier than any mass shooting in America. There are costs to freedom, including the potential for abuse. Just like predictive policing is wrong because it goes after those who haven't committed crimes, banning guns is wrong. The death of a ten, a hundred, a thousand, or more people doesn't…
I never realized that there is soooooo much kiddie porn on Facebook that it warrants creation of "back-door access" :-) no pun intended, for governments to spy on people's private communication so as to SAVE THE CHILDREN.
And all the while the most serious avenues for crime get forgotten, if anything they become an even greater risk because we're lulled into a false sense of security
Wage theft. I say we allow these backdoors but it has to come with a Civilian Unit uses it only on high profile targets. Lets have some CEO/politic heads roll for once please. Not Dimebag Dave.
You realize that most white collar crime involves never writing things down or sending something electronically that creates paper trail, right?
It’s in an even worse position being self hosted by people/entities with no power or sway in the face of a state. Is there a technical provision that applies to people hosting mastodon instances that doesn’t apply to large social media cos and cannot be beaten with a $5 wrench?
Mastodon is federated, which means everyone can start a instance. There will always be instances not controlled by the government and you cannot chase everyone.
That doesn't matter. How many people does something have to be able to kill before being banned? The truck attack in France was deadlier than any mass shooting in America. There are costs to freedom, including the potential for abuse. Just like predictive policing is wrong because it goes after those who haven't committed crimes, banning guns is wrong. The death of a ten, a hundred, a thousand, or more people doesn't…
The premise of your argument seems to be that the number of victims that a weapon can be unleashed on should not be a criterion for banning it. Am I getting that right? If so, can I please be allowed to have my own private nuclear warhead? I promise to only use it as a deterrent against a similarly armed government getting too "oppressive". I promise not to set it off in a bout of drunken depression.
Ahh, I love the McNuke argument. It's like "what about the roads" but for firearms policy. I've actually thought pretty hard about it, but no, I don't think so, and I believe my reason is consistent with the ideology I expressed above. The issue with nukes is that it's simply not possible to detonate one without causing collateral damage. Fallout, radiation poisoning, etc. So the government can in fact act to keep these externalities from harming others.
I'd argue a fairer metric would probably be to compare gun deaths to car deaths; nearly twice as many people died to cars in 2019 [0] [1]. I definitely don't think Trump will be "Hitler 2.0". He probably won't even be in office after this election. Again, however, my primary argument is normative and values-based. I'm not arguing that we only have gun rights because they don't kill x number of people. Even if a hundr…
Well you're in a dying breed it seems. These days liberty is not worth more than death. In other words, it's increasingly popular to trade some liberty in exchange for saving lives. Take away people's gun liberty, take away people's liberty to refuse wearing a mask, take away people's liberty to say hateful/hurtful things to the vulnerable on social media and you can save thousands, even tens of thousands of lives pe…
I certainly hope I'm not a dying breed, though the last few months have sadly made it appear that you may be right. I don't see why a sufficiently large number of people believing otherwise is a good argument against my position, though. While I'm certainly open to arguments to the contrary, my general worldview is simply that life is not the paramount value to be sought, but rather liberty instead.