711–720 of 785 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it'll die in this generation itself. The UK with Brexit are starting to find out very quickly how insignificant their nation is and how easy it is to route around the oversized egos of their so-called leaders.
British citizen here. I didn’t vote for Brexit. But would you mind perhaps not insulting my country?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'll play Devil's Advocate (because I enjoy throwing myself into the fray — especially when arguing against a point I actually agree with). No one is mass-sharing their safe of child-porn worldwide with thousands of other child-porn voyeurs. The internet and its ubiquitous accessibility combined with digital image file formats has changed the landscape for those that would fight these heinous crimes. It is indeed a n…
The most amazing psy op I’ve ever seen is this convincing the public that it’s people who use encryption who are the perverts, and not the people who literally want to creep on other people’s private photos of their kids / spouses / romantic partners. This is exactly the opposite of how it works in the real world.
Or, better, do you shit with the door open?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's crazy that we allow this at all. The government can't observe clandestine conversations that occur in person, does that mean they can mandate us to carry a government recording device? That people don't equally balk at requests to encumber encryption is baffling.
I like this vein of argument: assume that it is good that the government be able to snoop on your text messages. Why not in-person conversations as well? OK, let's make it so everything you say gets recorded. Eesh.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I like this vein of argument: assume that it is good that the government be able to snoop on your text messages. Why not in-person conversations as well? OK, let's make it so everything you say gets recorded. Eesh.
Yeah... the crux is should electronic conversations be afforded the same rights, and by extension are they assumed rights for all communication? Where to draw the line? It's definitely murky.
I feel we've been collectively losing the battle to keep our conversations private. The anti-encryption laws are likely vocally opposed only by a minority, while the majority believes they had no privacy to begin with and governments can read your messages at a whim. And perhaps that's true to some extent. But since most people believe the battle is lost, moreso that this has always been the status quo, then any batt…
>I feel we've been collectively losing the battle to keep our conversations private. A big part of the issue is that the nature of the conversations has changed. Mail and Telephones were never at any point perfectly private. The idea of having complete privacy in such conversations is actually rather new. The difference is that those communication mediums now represent nearly all communication, rather than a small fr…
I feel we've been collectively losing the battle to keep our conversations private. The anti-encryption laws are likely vocally opposed only by a minority, while the majority believes they had no privacy to begin with and governments can read your messages at a whim. And perhaps that's true to some extent. But since most people believe the battle is lost, moreso that this has always been the status quo, then any batt…
>I feel we've been collectively losing the battle to keep our conversations private. A big part of the issue is that the nature of the conversations has changed. Mail and Telephones were never at any point perfectly private. The idea of having complete privacy in such conversations is actually rather new. The difference is that those communication mediums now represent nearly all communication, rather than a small fr…
In principle they were not private but in practice they were because in most places the police had to realize that there was a conversation of interest, get a warrant, and use scarce resources.
Now the authorities are able to use machines to monitor traffic patterns for almost all communication the cost of interception is much lower.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>I have switched from iOS to Android and vice versa multiple times while still driving the same car. Did your app purchases form the Google Play Store automatically transfer to your Apple App store, and did your photos off your Google drive transfer to your iCloud, or vice-versa? Read my comment again, I ware referring to the ecosystems not being interchangeable, not the phones themselves. The incompatible ecosystems…
> Did your app purchases form the Google Play Store automatically transfer to your Apple App store Since every app that I pay to use that has an Android version is subscription based, yes. > and did your photos off your Google drive transfer to your iCloud, or vice-versa? Since I can download the Google Drive app on my iPhone and it shows up right next to iCloud Drive on the Files app and in File dialogs. Yes. As far…
That's not a direct transfer, it's a workaround which requires you to have free storage on your phone greater than the amount of photos you have.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I feel we've been collectively losing the battle to keep our conversations private. The USA is still doing pretty good but the UK and the EU are staunchly anti privacy. They're pretty good on consumer privacy but don't believe that privacy from the government should exist.
This feels pretty opposite to me. I mean sure UK is pretty privacy hostile in practice (CCTVs everywhere), but what does the US have for companies surveillance of people? How much of that data is legal for governments to buy? Maybe the US gov isn't spying on citizens, but how many 5-eyes partners are definitely sending data to them in proxy (by careful surveillance design)? I guess my question boils down to what spec…
I feel we've been collectively losing the battle to keep our conversations private. The anti-encryption laws are likely vocally opposed only by a minority, while the majority believes they had no privacy to begin with and governments can read your messages at a whim. And perhaps that's true to some extent. But since most people believe the battle is lost, moreso that this has always been the status quo, then any batt…
To me, there is one big argument for privacy: You never know what your govewrnment will change into in the next few years. This basic argument for encryption is often raised in combination with countries which we already consider non-free. But, frankly, I have finally learned the true meaning of this message during COVID times. I would never have expected society deteriorating into this fear/hate driven, media induce…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't that why we pay gov agents to hang out in the seedy parts of the web? If CP consumers are able to find each other with relative ease, I'm sure agents impersonating them can find them too. Then it's up to them to locate them, likely by exploiting an opsec failure along the way. I see no reason the give the gov eyes on everything when they have a perfectly valid route to investigations.
I'll also play Devil's advocate even though I'm a very vocal advocate for data privacy in real life. These government agents are people as well, and as people they'll suffer to wade through the dark corners of the web to locate a minuscule part of all the CP data available worldwide. These people will inevitably require mental care to deal with the trauma of looking at GiBs and GiBs of small kids being raped, that's…
The whole system around children is setup to protect government against children, FIRST. This will not change with surveillance, in fact it will be made a lot worse, and this is a far bigger problem than CP.
So if people claim that all government people are "good people", who are "just trying to help". The problem is the result. The real question is what happens to those children, to the victims, the rest doesn't matter.
To some extent that's actually true. Most teachers that eventually get convicted for ... students aren't pedophiles. They're people with no previous offences, who really did start their job to teach, who at some point lose their self control when dealing with children, because it's so easy. The problem with it being so easy, which leads to the sad observation that they tend to be responsible for a LOT of children, and therefore make a lot of victims before anything is done, because the system is set up to protect them. The current record is a German director of child services, who sexually abused over 30000 children. You might ask how you can even do that, that's almost one child per day, for a decade. The sad answer to that is that he had a large team around him. Teachers, in more normal cases are accused of abusing between 5 and 10 children.
And the outcomes ...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8225538/
https://www.jstor.org/stable/30034577
These people know this. They go through the web merely to punish and use violence against society to force what they consider decency standards. The problem is, they do not help these children, they usually only damage them (which leads to constant embarrassments. FBI 2 years ago proudly announced they had done a razzia, and "saved" 43 children from prostitution. Before 2 weeks passed 41 out of 43 of them had run away, with the very large majority very likely going back to prostitution). They just throw them into the child services system which destroys these children's lives far more than even actual abuse does. And, of course, mostly they were not abused but protected by their parents, and were far safer at home. And even that's ignoring that this is government: a significant fraction will get deported if they don't run away.
And this is ignoring the "accidental" studies, which follow this pattern: someone wants to make a career and needs, effectively, to find a large amount of children abused, to get attention. These can't be actually abused because of how humans work: abused children ... abuse others themselves, damage themselves, do drugs, act in criminal ways, ... So nobody in the system wants those, at best they are very problematic children. What these individuals need to do is convince authorities that a large cohort of normal (very young) children are in fact abused, and "need help". Mostly, of course, they don't tire themselves, and do this by simply lying, then ripping the child from their family, but for example there's the "on this anatomically correct doll" scandal.
The "plus" side of this is that we have plenty of evidence of the effect of child services ABSENT earlier abuse or problems in the child's life. And the evidence is damning. These children don't study. They suicide 10x more than normal children. They essentially do not, at all, continue studies after high school, and a high percentage doesn't finish high school
I would like to point these are studies, but this is extremely visible to people working in the field. The help government provides doesn't help children. They know this, yet they keep working in this system. This is, obviously, not moral.