Huh. I didn't see an Initiative / Referendum on that yet. Any pointers?
https://www.republik.ch/2025/05/07/die-schweiz-ist-drauf-und...
Infomaniak comes out in support of controversial Swiss encryption law
61–70 of 108 posts
Re: Infomaniak comes out in support of controversial Swiss encryption law
#62Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because historically it has never been done. The closest we got is when a group (religious or political) finds something most people somewhat agree with, declares it a universal value and proceeds to suppress, drive away or eliminate those evil people who do not share it. It is much better to define acceptable boundaries on actions and let people believe what they want if their actions do not violate those agreed on…
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.
People absolutely heed laws that they find personally inconvenient but are afraid of the penalties (parking restrictions, paying taxes, loud music and that is not even stepping into hot button topics).
The reason Swiss stayed democratic is likely not because they share universal, similarly understood values, but because they feel that their system that only defines acceptable norms is working okay as is.
Re: Infomaniak comes out in support of controversial Swiss encryption law
#63Re: Infomaniak comes out in support of controversial Swiss encryption law
#64You could work within their parameters but continually communicate an enormous amount of garbage that is not illegal but would be flagged, it would be an interesting experiment, and then they could decide whether or not they’d wish to continue. Personally, I think that privacy is a losing game, like gambling. The best case is that we all work within the parameters. But in any case, the amount of time and effort that…
unless society as a whole embraces that we’re all unhealthy and we’re all flawed, but at that point perhaps things become too flexible and very bad things happen. What bad things do you see happening? I see that as a good thing, we are all flawed, to me, society internalized that fact seems to be an opportunity to make it a better more compassionate one but alas I don't see that happening in the near future.
East Germany, the KGB, modern China, and many others have tried the route of getting rid of citizen privacy “for the common good” in similar ways, and it results in bad things.
AIs with superhuman intelligence may have all the data, may lean utilitarian, and similarly could it not just restrict people, commit genocide, genetically modify, drug, neuter, manipulate, and euthanize like the worst of the them? I don’t know how we combat this- go offline?
I would like humans to not waste much effort on privacy though, beyond what makes sense.
Re: Infomaniak comes out in support of controversial Swiss encryption law
#65I just moved my stuff from Google Drive over to Infomaniak kDrive, and I paid for a year of service... I don't really want to try to migrate 100s of gigs of data again :/
Re: Infomaniak comes out in support of controversial Swiss encryption law
#66Re: Infomaniak comes out in support of controversial Swiss encryption law
#67Nym, Threema and Proton said they would leave Switzerland over this. The question is where to go. Certainly not to any EU country (ProtectEU, Chat Control). https://www.techradar.com/vpn/vpn-privacy-security/we-would-...
Iceland? It’s tough. The world is, overall, going through a shift toward authoritarianism of various flavors, and people are voting for it because of incredibly successful propaganda and fear of change.
Re: Infomaniak comes out in support of controversial Swiss encryption law
#68Earlier quoted context omitted.
Seems like a not difficult and quite worthwhile exercise to come up with at least one or two values that are so basic and fundamental that everyone could share them. Maybe that's what OP is talking about. Why be obtuse about shared values?
> to come up with at least one or two values that are so basic and fundamental that everyone could share them Please do try this, I've tried it in the past, and always been able to come up with counter-examples to whatever I came up with. It's surprisingly hard. "Always be kind" is one example that for me should obviously be shared with everyone, but it's almost disgustingly easily to come up with whole cultures or c…
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 what though, if I come across somebody who says that they don't respect human life and dignity, I am absolutely going to avoid that person and shun them from any kind of society that I am a part of.
Re: Infomaniak comes out in support of controversial Swiss encryption law
#69I thought that this proposal was broadly opposed by Swiss political parties, is this not accurate? Is there a realistic chance of this passing or is it all sound and heat?
Re: Infomaniak comes out in support of controversial Swiss encryption law
#70Earlier quoted context omitted.
> to come up with at least one or two values that are so basic and fundamental that everyone could share them Please do try this, I've tried it in the past, and always been able to come up with counter-examples to whatever I came up with. It's surprisingly hard. "Always be kind" is one example that for me should obviously be shared with everyone, but it's almost disgustingly easily to come up with whole cultures or c…
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…
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 should let people live where they currently live, if they and their family lived there for 100 years say? Lots of Israeli settlers would disagree with that, but for me that would be a sign that someone doesn't have "respect for human life".
> if I come across somebody who says that they don't respect human life and dignity
Of course everyone will say "Yeah, of course I do!", but where the rubber meets the dirt is how people define that. Not being kind to people who made mistakes for example, wouldn't be "respecting human life" for me, but you might disagree, as you think we shouldn't be kind to people who committed murders, but you would still claim you "respect human life".