Although what we’re talking about here has absolutely nothing to do with social media platforms…
Name me at least one social media platform that:
Is not regulated by laws (anything related to IRL violence, doxing, CSAM etc)
Allow CSAM and doesn’t follow individuals or government’s requests worldwide to remove if something like that is found leaked through cracks
People who are not only evil, but also stupid enough to do and post illegal stuff on social media platforms are jailed daily, because it’s already controlled by laws, including personal messages if platform has them, there’s no such thing as social media end to end encryption, even if they claim so.
I am not going to go down the rabbit hole completely - I just want to put one thought out there:
IF this proposed law would actually accomplish any of the goals ascribed to it, rather than opening up things that should remain private, then it would be less objectionable. Neither terrorism nor child abuse is all that pervasive - and neither is notorious for using end-to-end encryption. With regard to children, do you think e2e is being used by the gymnastics coach - the pastor - the parent?
Terrorist are another thing - rather difficult to define… basically a terrorist is someone using distasteful methods to ‘make a point’ and possibly influence the outcome. Unfortunately the definition tends to be ‘anyone disagreeing with and/or working against the goals of the people in power’ - and trials are already not ‘open’ or reliant on evidence that would stand up with most people, and not even reality-based.
In the world, as it should be, this should not be a big deal. In the world as it is - well look how close the US came to being a 3rd world dictatorship. Would you trust that ‘administration’ with a tool like this?
Whoa, I’m here, and literally every single person I’ve spoken to also knows this is a terrible idea. Please don’t lump me and my country in with those terribly wrong ideas. We surely don’t want to be associated with it.
Please explain how someone who does not want their every message filtered by some government appointed entity now is free to do that? If they are now no longer free to do that (as this law would filter their messages - even encrypted) how is that not taking away their freedom? If they can do something now, and can’t tomorrow, SOMETHING has been taken away - a choice is a freedom.
No one is trying to convince you that you’re wrong. You are wrong even if we convince you or not. What you choose to believe is up to you.
Thus why I always choose freedom - That way you and all persons can make that choice, and no one is forced to live in the haze of dogma.
Control is not freedom. Under this law, everyone who disagrees with it, pays the price. If we go by just this thread alone, even if it’s 50/50 ratio of people who disagree, that means 50% of people will pay the price. Without it roughly 99% of people would be free to choose.
::moderation notice::
i do not think there will be a consensus in such discussion.
Distrust of the state administration and belief in the state are two very different sides.
The only possible consensus here would be to say that the state basically has a good idea, but the execution is not the best.
Best would be to let this political part aside.
Distrust is healthy and should be possible we should not trust anyone, without reflecting and researching.
In both sides . . and respect calls for accept both sides.
I thoroughly respect EVERYONE who wants to help kids, and protect others. It’s truly noble. We want our familes and neighbors, friends and everyone to live happy safe lives.
I just can’t accept losing freedoms as ever being a good thing. I absolutely want to help kids and fight terrorism though.
The reality though, freedom isn’t free, people will continue to lose their lives to protect it. Some innocent. Some noble soldiers, some of the most important have names we will never even know about. It’s one of the most rare and important things we have as humans. We must protect it, even from ourselves.
Don’t break the law and they have no reason to. The laws are only trying to be put there around end to end encryption for the purpose of being able to stop criminal activity. Doesn’t mean they’re using it to eavesdrop on people. It’s a means in which to investigate and gather facts and evidence in order to prosecute those individuals or groups who fall under the radar.
Edit: Again no one is trying to outlaw end to end encryption. That’s not their purpose on the contrary as was stated:
Encryption is an existential anchor of trust in the digital world and we do not support counter-productive and dangerous approaches that would materially weaken or limit security systems.
It doesn’t mater what the intended reasoning is. If I can’t send a message without it being filtered by someone, I’ve lost my freedom to make that choice. It literally that simple.
This ONLY works if they are eaves dropping on people. . . If they aren’t eaves dropping (filtering messages), then how would they ever know if or what I was sending?
This is the part you’re not getting. End to end encryption verbatim means no one in the middle can possibly know what is being sent. Encryption can’t exist if there’s someone else moderating it in the middle. It can’t be encrypted AND scanned for nefarious things.
The laws are only trying to be put there around end to end encryption for the purpose of being able to stop criminal activity. Doesn’t mean they’re using it to eavesdrop on people. It’s a means in which to investigate and gather facts and evidence in order to prosecute those individuals or groups who fall under the radar.