81–90 of 338 posts
These tyrants have to be stopped. A tyrannical government is far more dangerous to people, including children than your regular criminal. Ironically, by giving the state too much power and therefore increasing the symptoms of corruption, we allow the same sort of crimes to be practiced by corrupt state officials with little means for people enact accountability. China, the country with the most mass-surveillance in t…
I'm just tired, to be honest. Even if we prevent this exact law (proposal), a few years down the line there probably will be another attempt. And again, and again. Just like it happend with the mandatory data retention laws for ISPs. I really try to stay optimistic on this topic, but it's really hard. :/
I might be wrong, but as technology progress, it seems almost inevitable that a single individual can do more and more damage. An amount of damage it took half an army to achieve a couple of hundred years ago, one individual can do today with the help of a bomb, a plane or a machine gun.
What happens the day that a few number of individuals can build a super virus (already possible for a few, but it will become more common), nuclear bomb or, heck, create a black hole in their basement? If that day comes, it doesn’t matter how strongly I hold the principle that everybody should have the right to privacy; I will gladly welcome our new AI surveillance overlords just to stay alive.
I don't understand who wants this. does any of their actual constituency want it? Or is it literally just the actual elected officials getting power hungry? Stuff like abortion, etc where I don't really understand the other side. I've at least met real people who are pro life. I've never met the people who want these clownish surveillance things but they keep coming up anyways.
> Why right-wing extremists’ favorite new platform is so dangerous. Telegram’s lax content moderation and encrypted chats make it a convenient tool for extremists.
https://www.vox.com/recode/22238755/telegram-messaging-socia...
> In collaboration with anti-fascist research group the White Rose Society, the Guardian has tracked McLean’s activity through the rabbit warren of largely unregulated Telegram groups and found that he describes a vastly different version of his intentions.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/mar/26/where...
> Far-right groups move online conversations from social media to chat apps — and out of view of law enforcement
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/oct/14/telegram-war...
> White supremacists openly organize racist violence on Telegram, report finds
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/06/26/tech/white-supremacists-t...
> Are Private Messaging Apps the Next Misinformation Hot Spot? Telegram and Signal, the encrypted services that keep conversations confidential, are increasingly popular. Our tech columnists discuss whether this could get ugly.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/03/technology/personaltech/t...
> A report this week found that the messaging app had emerged as a central hub for several conspiracy movements espousing antisemitic tropes and memes, including QAnon, as well as others on the extreme right promoting violence.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/01/15/parler-...
The most specific thing I found was a linked document that laid out three possible legislation options, all in very loose language, of which one was an entirely voluntary system.
Found from here https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-sa...
I don't understand who wants this. does any of their actual constituency want it? Or is it literally just the actual elected officials getting power hungry? Stuff like abortion, etc where I don't really understand the other side. I've at least met real people who are pro life. I've never met the people who want these clownish surveillance things but they keep coming up anyways.
? I don't get it, it's the easiest thing to understand. Terrorism, human trafficking, 'high treason' (i.e. nuclear secrets, spying). Those are very real things and I think it would be relatively easy to convince the population that some degree of oversight is necessary. Because there's legitimacy. I fully support the idea, nominally, except that I don't trust the bureaucracy at all, and so I'm pretty much against it,…
Which wouldn’t make it mass-surveillance.
The problem is when the government enforces an infrastructure of mass-surveillance where information about everybody, in their homes, outside, their communication, and so on, is being collected. Regular people like you and I will have zero ability to vet how this information is used. We can’t let the government have this much power over us. The best way to prevent this mass-surveillance is by not allowing this data to be collected in the first place.
Selective surveillance is something different. It’s not logistically possible for your government to selectively surveil everyone the same way they do with the mass-surveillance infrastructures that are being deployed. This logistical limitation is a feature, not a bug.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mean, intercepting private business communications about say, factory openings or closings, would put the people with that information in a position to make large amounts of money by buying or selling property in those areas. There are dozens of similar examples that don't require much imagination to envisage. Blackmail material on politicians, insider knowledge on energy transactions and plans, advance warning on…
> I mean, intercepting private business communications about say, factory openings or closings, would put the people with that information in a position to make large amounts of money by buying or selling property in those areas. Like the US did with Airbus in the echelon scandal even before the pervasive surveillance that came in after 9/11. Just saying this is not a remote "worst case" scenario but a real-world one…
These tyrants have to be stopped. A tyrannical government is far more dangerous to people, including children than your regular criminal. Ironically, by giving the state too much power and therefore increasing the symptoms of corruption, we allow the same sort of crimes to be practiced by corrupt state officials with little means for people enact accountability. China, the country with the most mass-surveillance in t…
It's interesting how EU regulators build good will through stunts like mandating USB-C or forcing open the App Store and GDPR protections and then turn around and do stuff like this.
Any good cartoonist out there that would make the EU version of this masterpiece?
I don't understand who wants this. does any of their actual constituency want it? Or is it literally just the actual elected officials getting power hungry? Stuff like abortion, etc where I don't really understand the other side. I've at least met real people who are pro life. I've never met the people who want these clownish surveillance things but they keep coming up anyways.
Yes Minister covers it well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahgjEjJkZks Tell them you're going to have their messages scanned on behalf of the government and nobody wants it. Tell them you're going to introduce measures for online safety and to crack down on child abuse, and everybody wants it. Unless you're pre-informed on the issues, whoever presents it to you can just pick the side that gets you to the answer the…
You don't need to be "pre-informed".
You just need to be skeptical. Some knowledge of history is a good start.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Abortion is especially strange since a supermajority of Americans, across the political spectrum, of both genders, generally agree that some abortions should be permitted [1]. 70% want to keep the status quo. [2] It's even arguably a violation of the religious freedom of Jewish folks to ban abortion [3]. It's not forbidden by the Bible either - the Bible makes it clear that life begins 'at first breath' (Genesis 2:7)…
The stipulation comes at the definition of what life is and what taking life away is. It’s a very difficult thing to define what life is, thus legally it is for lack of a better phrasing “a can of worms.” If you’re programming minded, you may see how such a definition is ambiguous and opens many attack vectors for interpretation. After seeing it this way, I began to understand why it’s so hotly contested.
