221–230 of 656 posts
They choose something sensitive as a pretext to push their agenda.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
when you are talking to a european audience, they tend to be in favor of gun control so they don't care about erosion of those rights (like the people in the US who also favor eroding them, wording of the rules be damned) HN is to a large extent a popularity contest, and people here are more in favor of free speech than guns. the US record on protecting free speech is very good.
> you are talking to a european audience, they tend to be in favor of gun control so they don't care about erosion of those rights You have accidentally properly identified the european problem and precisely the reason that chat control will pass: shortsightedness. If people only rise up to protect rights "they need", soon no rights will be left.
But guns are vastly insufficient in this century to overthrow the state, you basically only harm your fellow citizens with them.
I mean for the actual legit user. Pedophiles will still be able to use encrypted mail, Android phone that are not Google certified and so free to sideload anything, or even just passworded zip.
From the article, the current flavor of "threat" this is being positioned to fight is CSAM. Does anyone believe that predators commit those heinous offenses because of the availability of encrypted channels to distribute those products of their crimes? I sure don't. The materials exist because of predators' access to children, which these surveillance measures won't solve. Best case scenario (and this is wildly optim…
Yes, the framing is disingenuous, but so is yours. You're seriously suggesting that any policy that doesn't 100% eliminate a problem is a joke?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How on earth are hate speech laws a good thing? Or did I miss a /s?
For example, the US government is trying to label any posthumous criticism of Charlie Kirk "Hate Speech". You can see how dangerous this could be when the hate-mongers get to decide what is considered hate speech.
It's one thing to be disruptive and enforce immigration law "by the books" but entirely separate to then go out of your way to not enforce it legally while at the same time violating or attempting to violate the constitution on pretty fundamental levels.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've commented this elsewhere, but rights in the US are generally much more absolute than here in Europe. For example, in the EU you technically have the right to freedom of expression, but you can also be arrested if you say something that could offend someone. Similarly rights to privacy are often ignored whenever a justification can be made that it's appropriate to do so. I don't know about elsewhere in the world,…
> For example, in the EU you technically have the right to freedom of expression, but you can also be arrested if you say something that could offend someone. So you actually don't have freedom of expression?
Your right to something ends were a right of someone else is violated. That's the case here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But isn't the government fearing the people exactly why they're relentlessly pushing ChatControl?
if they feared the populace, they couldn't push for legislation that entrenches their position without any benefits to citizens.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Laws don't stop men with guns. Men with guns stop men with guns. Prove it. Every statistic I've ever seen shows the exact opposite of this to be true.
Here's the proof: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_communist_... . Those kinds of mass killings can only happen when the citizens are disarmed, because it's logistically impossible for a government to seize absolute power when a significant proportion of the citizens are armed.
From the article, the current flavor of "threat" this is being positioned to fight is CSAM. Does anyone believe that predators commit those heinous offenses because of the availability of encrypted channels to distribute those products of their crimes? I sure don't. The materials exist because of predators' access to children, which these surveillance measures won't solve. Best case scenario (and this is wildly optim…
>The authorities really think every predator will just give up and stop abusing just because of that? What a joke. Yes, the framing is disingenuous, but so is yours. You're seriously suggesting that any policy that doesn't 100% eliminate a problem is a joke?
And if you say both - how would you rate the relative severity of the two problems? Specifically, if you had to pick between preventing the rape of a child, and preventing N acts of CSAM distribution, how big would N have to be to make it worth choosing the latter?