Earlier quoted context omitted.
Switzerland is the oldest democracy in the world. Your comment certainly doesn't fit the way this country handles its citizens. There is the Law, the "what is tolerated" and what isn't. That's the "boundaries on actions". But any malicious mind won't bow down to those intentional principles.
I don’t believe that Switzerland is the oldest democracy in the world, but I could be mistaken. Iceland has had a democratic-ish parliament since the 900s[0]. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Althing
Infomaniak comes out in support of controversial Swiss encryption law
101–108 of 108 posts
Re: Infomaniak comes out in support of controversial Swiss encryption law
#102Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Most societies that we would consider worth living in hold up the principle that matters of justice should be decided by the impartial and uninvolved Please, don't twist my words, I never said the victim should be the judge. I asked how would the victim feel if criminality had safe spaces where they could avoid justice because they feel like the law is unfair with them. >If the victim's feelings should determine the…
> I asked how would the victim feel A lot of the kinds of crimes we're discussing here are things like being homosexual in the Middle East, where there is no victim, only a transgression imagined by religious nuts. Yes, it's good that those people have a place to go. Happy Pride.
Not sure why you had to go make that parallel but it really isn't. You can control yourself from committing crimes, you can't control yourself from being born gay.
Re: Infomaniak comes out in support of controversial Swiss encryption law
#103Earlier quoted context omitted.
In practice there are always exceptions to everything. You don't be kind to murderers, for instance. Kindness isn't really a value, though. Shared values are simply things that people decide are important for a society to function as well as possible. Respect for human life and dignity, for example. Good thing right? How many mental gymnastics does somebody have to go through to find some exception to that? Tell you…
> You don't be kind to murderers, for instance. Why not? I think everyone deserves kindness, and I'm not alone in thinking that. So even something that for me is obvious, it isn't as obvious for everyone. > Respect for human life and dignity, for example It's very generic, and subjective, which again leads me to believe not everyone would agree on what it means. For example, does "respect for human life" mean you sho…
Re: Infomaniak comes out in support of controversial Swiss encryption law
#104Sigh, I just moved a bunch of domains over, after The Jolly Teapot started using and recommended them. - https://thejollyteapot.com/uses - https://thejollyteapot.com/2024/11/05/website-updates/
Re: Infomaniak comes out in support of controversial Swiss encryption law
#105Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t think op meant that at all. Your response reads a lot like “if you don’t have anything to hide…” arguments against privacy and encryption. Liberty always comes with a cost. It is de-facto a lack of control by the state. It is precisely this lack of control that creates value in liberty. The state will always go through cycles of opinion, witch hunts, political interference, and other malfeasances of power. It…
> Your response reads a lot like “if you don’t have anything to hide…” That's not what I said. >We must force the state to use open coercion when it wants to stretch the limits of its reach. That's exactly what I said. >even if it means criminals and deviants will face less obstacles Curios how liberal you'd be with the criminal who'd wronged you. Mercy towards criminals is a crime towards their victims.
Of course, reality is that whether justice is forthcoming is dictated by economic interests, not law, and certainly not your idea of law. In other words, whether you criticize China's treatment of Uighur, or point out how gigantic the scale of pollution the CCP is responsible for, or which economic disaster they caused this week, will get you in hot water more than committing a (scammer) crime will. Whether you criticize India's rich, Thailand's or Saudi Arabia's royalty and actually get some attention (which, as has been demonstrated, will make them get diplomatically immune embassy staff kill you. Perhaps that's not legal, but they cannot legally be punished for that, not even financially). And if you either insult or otherwise pose a problem to western copyright interests (e.g. make a tutorial about LibreELEC) you'll get the hammer put down on you:
https://www.jeffgeerling.com/tags/libreelec
Of course, it will remain trivial to sabotage judicial proceedings if you're outside of the jurisdiction of that court (and because second/third world courts simply side with scammers against victims), the stated reason of the argument is NOT something you can do in practice, and whether the law is on your side? It is already on your side if you go after scammers! It is impossible to use local laws to go after scammers. What protects scammers, as everybody knows, is less anonymity than it is third world states and attitudes, especially their total lack of respect for international treaties they signed, combined with the reach FANGs, incumbent Telco's and Banks give to scammers. Given that one of FANGs, TikTok (in practice even if not in theory) runs from within the third world even that option is fast disappearing. This law does nothing about that.
Even within the west, there's an expression from the legal profession: "you cannot get blood from a stone". It is meant to illustrate the problem that scams and most fraud are committed by people who are "on the margin" and have no money or options (almost all fraud is committed by tenants). On the margin means that while they aren't poor, even a 1000 euro judgement would make them destitute for 6 months or more. You will not get a judge to convict these people. It doesn't matter how much you legally are in the right, the justice system will refuse to destroy their lives, make them homeless, instead they will correctly point out that will achieve nothing, and leave you hanging. This is another thing you can't change. (yes, with the current attitudes if the criminal is an immigrant you may get them removed. But you still won't get your money back)
And to follow your accusatory style: is this what you want to achieve? Support scammers to advance the interests of extreme rich third-world autocrats? Because that's what you're doing.
Re: Infomaniak comes out in support of controversial Swiss encryption law
#106Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Yes. If the alternative is a worldwide police state. Being held accountable for crimes is your definition of a "police state"? Interesting. What you're trying to hint at is political persecution, and there is the possibility of asylum for that. But let's differentiate between persecution and running away from crimes, and not muddy the waters. Not all crimes are the result of persecution. Otherwise what's stopping an…
The only way to definitely hold everybody accountable for all crimes is a police state. Like Franklin said, he'd rather 100 guilty people go free rather than a single innocent person jailed. He was definitely willing to not hold some people accountable for their crimes because that was a requirement for a free state. You said earlier that the solution was to change the laws, and this is what we're saying right now. C…
What does this have to do with anything? All jails now have innocent people in them due to process failures. How does quoting Franklin make them feel better?
>He was definitely willing to not hold some people accountable for their crimes because that was a requirement for a free state.
If by "free sate" you mean a high crime rate state where toothpaste needs to be locked up in CVS due to criminals being let free, then yeah.
Re: Infomaniak comes out in support of controversial Swiss encryption law
#107Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You don't be kind to murderers, for instance. Why not? I think everyone deserves kindness, and I'm not alone in thinking that. So even something that for me is obvious, it isn't as obvious for everyone. > Respect for human life and dignity, for example It's very generic, and subjective, which again leads me to believe not everyone would agree on what it means. For example, does "respect for human life" mean you sho…
This is suddenly a too-online conversation. Please do go be always kind to murderers. Society is definitely better off without anybody agreeing to value respect for human life and dignity -- just so generic and subjective! Too hard to get anybody to agree on what that even means!
Re: Infomaniak comes out in support of controversial Swiss encryption law
#108And not only by the judicial system. Also I do believe the net can survive anonymity just fine due to empirical evidence.