Earlier quoted context omitted.
They're all long established websites. The oldest one I have an account on (and use to get posters) is 2007.
Also doesn't mean they're legal.
Maybe no point beating up the guy. Maybe he's slightly naive.
The Going Dark initiative or ProtectEU is a Chat Control 3.0 attempt
281–290 of 300 posts
Re: The Going Dark initiative or ProtectEU is a Chat Control 3.0 attempt
#282Until people lobby for these privacy rights to be enshrined in law, this will continue to be a problem. Defeating one bad law isn't enough.
Secrecy of communiations frequently constitutionally protected:
See p. 11 of https://www.sipotra.it/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Comparing-...
Re: The Going Dark initiative or ProtectEU is a Chat Control 3.0 attempt
#283Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can't really connect what you're saying here. I understand that you think drawing loli (I imagine) shouldn't be classified as pedophelia, but what does the law say? Part of living in a society is compromise. I don't believe that certain stretches of road close to my home should have a 50kph speed limit, but when I get a ticket I also accept that I'm in the wrong. If you're of the opinion that drawing children havin…
> If you're of the opinion that drawing children having sex (assuming again) shouldn't be illegal, you should be lobbying/advocating for that position. Changing the compromise. Otherwise you're, like me driving too fast, at the mercy of the justice system. That only makes sense if your general stance to everything is "forbidden unless explicitly permitted". I hope I don't have to say why that sounds oppressive. There…
> That only makes sense if your general stance to everything is "forbidden unless explicitly permitted"
Not at all. The UK, just as an example, explicitly bans images (as opposed to photographs, which are covered under different law) of children that are pornographic and obscene. That is, by legal professionals, interpreted as including manga, comics, and CGI.
You do not need some universal "default position" to understand the laws as they currently exist.
Re: The Going Dark initiative or ProtectEU is a Chat Control 3.0 attempt
#284I’m puzzled by the limited opposition from businesses regarding government attempts to access encrypted communications. Granting governments easy access—which inevitably leads to uncontrolled monitoring—compromises a company’s most valuable asset: its privacy. This would effectively hand over the keys to their operations, exposing them to security breaches, stifling growth potential, limiting access to competitive markets, and ultimately, jeopardizing company ownership. Corrupt officials could exploit this access to manipulate markets, facilitate insider trading, sabotage business plans, and even plant fabricated evidence within company communications and systems, leading to potential takeover and imprisonment of owners.
Re: The Going Dark initiative or ProtectEU is a Chat Control 3.0 attempt
#285Earlier quoted context omitted.
If those countries have laws against making and consuming pedophile pictures and drawings (or "artwork"), I feel it's perfectly fine for people making and consuming those to be raided, even if they disagree with the law (if people could opt out of all laws they don't agree with, I'mnot sure what would be the point of making laws). What is not ok is to watch the activities of everyone who is not a pedophile in order t…
I read this as "It's perfectly fine to persecute people for their art". And boy, you're on the wrong side of history.
There are all kinds of things you might qualify as "art" which are forbidden in my country (France) - for example if your "art" is about drawing nazi symbols you hopefully are going to have troubles - and I don't have a problem with having pedophile content in that list.
Re: The Going Dark initiative or ProtectEU is a Chat Control 3.0 attempt
#286Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It likely encourages pedophilia Throught the same mechanism that violent games encourage violence, I presume? Porn became abundant over last two decades and somehow people are having less sex than ever. There are many clues that those kinds of things work in the completely opposite way than you imagine. I hate that it exists. I hate that there are people who are seeking this. But I also hate when people state confi…
I know what you mean, but do you not agree that if someone is, let's say, on the point of becoming a pedophile, discovers such media, it will become more and more of what they think about, and what one thinks about determines their actions.
That's easily concievable scenario. Which doesn't make it true or overwhelmingly significant to the bottom line. Many untrue things are equally easy to imagine.
What about a scenario where a person that could be satisfied by such materials in absence of them discovers actual children and hurts them?
Many men, who don't have luck with women, lust for women, but very few actually go out and hurt them. For each one that develops violent tendencies through pornography there are probably many that have their violent tendencies kept in the realms of fantasy thanks to pornography (and awareness of laws that punish actual violence).
My point is that it's too important subject to rely on just guesswork. There should be research into this because there's a huge potential for eyeballed solutions to actually hurt the vulnerable more than they help.
Re: The Going Dark initiative or ProtectEU is a Chat Control 3.0 attempt
#287Earlier quoted context omitted.
The EC has no democratic control, their members are not elected, only the commissioners are "approved" by the european parliament. Its actions are also obfuscated and mostly non-public (as we saw in the ChatControl case, for instance), so citizens hardly even know what's happening.
Dunno about European governemt but us secretaries of state are appointed by the head of government just like a commissioner is
The president is responsible for the secretaries of State actions, and more generally their respective parties.
No one is responsible for the commissioners' actions, and they can't be fired. When Von der Leyen lied and refused to show her text messages where she privately negotiated Covid vaccines, nothing happened. When the EU commissioner for digital markets left and got hired by Uber right after... nothing happened, as no one was responsible.
Commissioners hold the legislative power, as they choose which laws to introduce and hold the pen during negociations. It's pure, unchecked bureaucratic power that ends up with a never ending flow of stupid regulations that weaken Europe slowly.
Re: The Going Dark initiative or ProtectEU is a Chat Control 3.0 attempt
#288Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It likely encourages pedophilia It's like saying that pictures of gay people encourages homosexuality
Of course pictures of gay people doesn't encourage being gay, but being gay is fine. Being a pedophile is not fine. If there is even a small chance that something will cause someone to be a pedophile, it's best to minimize it. We aren't talking about pictures of pedophiles, we are talking about what is, in essence, child pornography. Maybe 'encourages pedophilia' is not a thorough enough way to phrase it, but a 'dorm…
> If there is even a small chance that something will cause someone to be a pedophile, it's best to minimize it.
I have this great idea. It involves clothes that completely cover up the people that could cause temptation, creating separate spaces for them, and so.
Re: The Going Dark initiative or ProtectEU is a Chat Control 3.0 attempt
#289Earlier quoted context omitted.
> will often adopt a wrong idea of what's okay I wonder who gets to decide what's okay.
Basic morality and human rights
From a universal perspective, there is no such thing as "basic morality". Only what the most recent cultural norms of the largest (or strongest) group of people say.
Re: The Going Dark initiative or ProtectEU is a Chat Control 3.0 attempt
#290Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's because this campaign is about changing that very law. Saying that "this is blatantly illegal" misses the basic point of this proposal being a CHANGE of the law that makes that illegal.
No, it's even worse. This is an attempt to bypass those laws by bringing in a new one at European level, and having that supersede the obnoxious protections in member states' Constitutions (Germany is hardly the only one with such protections).
If this passes, Germany would have to approve of it, which makes your diction a bit wierd.
A country approving a law at a higher instance that changes their existing law is not bypassing anything.