161–170 of 656 posts
What would prevent me from writing my own program to do something simple like sending encrypted messages? Or just emails...
Same thing that prevents you form buying a knife and walking around stabbing people.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah let's ensure only the craziest, most desperate for power type to be the regulators. Hitler knew if he had lost, he would have been executed. Didn't stop him from going war.
One could argue that Putin won't stop the current war against Ukraine for the very same reason. He is obsessed with Gaddafi's undignified end in a ditch and cannot be seen as weak. The GP's idea is very bad. Quite to the contrary, losing power should not come with disastrous personal consequences.
Imagine a future where it becomes easier to commit terrorism because of some technological advancements—like smaller, less traceable bombs, or chemical weapons that are easily accessible and lead to higher casualties—like in the 1,000s or more. Imagine in that scenario, that the likelihood of you or someone you know becoming the victim of a terrorist attack is now non-trivial in your society. In a future where this b…
> .. like smaller, less traceable bombs, or chemical weapons that are easily accessible and lead to higher casualties ..
it's very easy to build a bomb, you just need to "google" and make your shopping... Killing random people in the street is easy too, you have, among others, knifes - very easy to buy and commit a crime in side streets, etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes but unfortunately courts are mostly reactive, not proactive Sometimes there are some mechanisms to block unconstitutional (or other regulation) laws from passing but they're limited Not sure how that would apply at the EU level or even at the Danish level
> Yes but unfortunately courts are mostly reactive, not proactive I think it’s always the case, no? Unless the unconstitutional law is approved, there is nothing to dispute in court.
Imagine a future where it becomes easier to commit terrorism because of some technological advancements—like smaller, less traceable bombs, or chemical weapons that are easily accessible and lead to higher casualties—like in the 1,000s or more. Imagine in that scenario, that the likelihood of you or someone you know becoming the victim of a terrorist attack is now non-trivial in your society. In a future where this b…
you can always establish encrypted channel via DH over stenography in plaintext messaging, and just use any encrypted protocol.
if hardware is compromised a black market for such devices will surface.
Worst case scenario you create gigantic one time pads and just use them.
the whole idea is flawed as you get neither security nor privacy. in fact - it actually opens you to abuse if encryption is backdoored. Not to mention it being a gigantic slippery slope argument.
and most importantly - how to you ensure that you can ALWAYS trust your government with such powers?
Imagine a future where it becomes easier to commit terrorism because of some technological advancements—like smaller, less traceable bombs, or chemical weapons that are easily accessible and lead to higher casualties—like in the 1,000s or more. Imagine in that scenario, that the likelihood of you or someone you know becoming the victim of a terrorist attack is now non-trivial in your society. In a future where this b…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> but this is not stopping Denmark from wanting to ratify ChatControl anyway. What the TLDR of the motivation behind this? Is it just politicians playing to their base (think of the children) or corporate lobbying. or religion, etc? Seems to me that the negatives of passing something like this are super obvious and dystopian.
If I was leading another western nation I would be looking at the right wing takeover of the US government in terror.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or as someone put it, "People shouldn't fear the government. The government should fear the people." I feel like we've lost the vocabulary we ought to be using to talk about the legitimacy and role of the state. More people need to read J.S. Mill (and probably Hobbes.) Even today, works by both are surprisingly good reads and embed a lot of thoughtful and timeless wisdom.
But isn't the government fearing the people exactly why they're relentlessly pushing ChatControl?