81–90 of 230 posts
Can someone explain how the same group of countries can simultaneously issue book-long regulations about how everyone needs to respect privacy to the nth degree, and run around the world trying to force others to do the same, yet also propose these kinds of things?
Do citizens in the EU actually want this? If not, how are EU politicians so disconnected from their citizens? How did this state of affairs come to be? Is it reversible? In the US, our politicians don’t diverge quite as much, but when they do, the reason is money, and when it gets bad, we throw the bums out and elect populists. It’s not pretty and it’s messy but it self corrects with the next election if it doesn’t w…
Most actions taken by this administration have > 65% disapproval ratings, and according to historical norms, if the size of current protests double, the people will overthrow the government.
The last time I checked, the ongoing ICE raids against civilians were one of the more popular policies.
The first mitigation steps that come to mind: - Keep casual conversations on mainstream crap to be reachable by the masses and give the appearance of being monitored . - Send friends to a tiny URL that redirects to a tiny ephemeral private anonymous chat instance running entirely in RAM with an IP certificate [0] once available to remove domain name ownership from the picture. When done with that chat edit redirect t…
I've done an essay as my exam for an ethics course in uni, and choose to talk about chat control. I came up with very funny ways to circumvent scanning images. The easiest one would be to just encrypt an image and send the key and the encrypted message on different platforms to the recipient, I highly doubt they will be tied to the single user. Another - funnier way - would be to send the image as a file, and the rec…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The data tells us that many child abusers are caught with CSAM as well How much CSAM? A PornHub's worth of content, or a couple of pictures? The data suggests that in the adult porn world, people aren't satisfied by a single Playboy magazine. Which, too, is the logic behind CSAM laws — that the insatiable search for more content incentives production of more content. But at some point there will be more content tha…
> But at some point there will be more content that can be consumed, and given how often CSAM producers are caught (not even counting those who never are) we've no doubt far exceeded that threshold No, we haven't "no doubt far exceeded that threshold". Some CSAM producers getting caught does not make it so. I could say it's unlikely that CSAM production even approaches 1% of the magnitude of adult pornography product…
Okay. Exactly how much CSAM data has been produced over the years? And what is the threshold where there is enough?
> Logical fallacies apply only to arguments.
Logical fallacies are most commonly associated with arguments, but are not limited to them. However, "Take your CSAM apologia somewhere else.", as poorly thought out as it is, would be considered an argument if you stay within the bounds of how the term is normally used, of course, so what you say here doesn't even hold anyway.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most of the people I know - and I live in eu - are not knowledgeable about these topics. Furthermore, I've never heard about this in one of the main news channels, so I guess that most people don't even know about it
There's this "I have nothing to hide" sentiment followed by blind trusts into officials, their intentions and their alleged protection. I.e. people are scares of terrorism and would like it to stop, so they hope the terrorists will be found by spying. At least in countries where the terrorism emerged recently, I'd say...
As a European that lived in the US for a long time, a big difference is that there is also a lot of "European Conformism". You don't want to be seen as the weird one protesting things if nobody else does it. It's just easier to go with the flow and accept things.
This pops up every few years, and I bet once it gets in it never goes away. It seems asymmetric that one side only has to win once to win permanently while the other side has to win constantly. Is there any mechanism to stop this in the EU and make this kind of legislation explicitly barred?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratification_of_the_Treaty_of_... Like when the Irish electorate rejected the Lisbon Treaty, and then was then harangued into accepting a reheated version. Opponents of the treaty reasonably asked if it could be best-of-three.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_Dutch_European_Constituti...
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_French_European_Constitut...
Can someone explain how the same group of countries can simultaneously issue book-long regulations about how everyone needs to respect privacy to the nth degree, and run around the world trying to force others to do the same, yet also propose these kinds of things?
This pops up every few years, and I bet once it gets in it never goes away. It seems asymmetric that one side only has to win once to win permanently while the other side has to win constantly. Is there any mechanism to stop this in the EU and make this kind of legislation explicitly barred?
Vote them out and never vote for their parties in your general elections If your Member of European Parliament supports chat control stop voting for their parties and politically support their opposition
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Just as the existence of America as we know it necessitates the pillaging and raping of native tribes. But we're not going to watch over your shoulder to make sure you don't participate in American society and send you to jail if you do. As unfortunate as past damage is, life moves on. There is a significant difference in that you can choose not to consume CSAM. Most Americans don't get to choose not to participate…
> Most Americans don't get to choose not to participate in American society. Most Americans don't participate in American society, other than maybe voting, and even then a significant number of them still don't. > I would argue that the better solution is to keep the CSAM laws we have—maybe make them harsher, even And I would be trillionaire, but I guess won't bother... The original comment asked for that argument. I…
Paying taxes doesn't count as participating in "American society"? The same taxes that, say, have funded America's controversial military operations in the past?
> And I would be trillionaire, but I guess won't bother... The original comment asked for that argument. If you don't want to provide, I get it. You are under no obligation to do so. But what is the point of saying you would do it without actually doing it? If you don't want to provide why make up a fake story when you can just as easily be honest about it or say nothing at all?
I'm happy enough with maintaining the status quo. I'm not the one trying to demolish Chesterton's Fence here.