post deleted
1 Like
And that’s exactly why they play on people’s emotions and fear to legislate such insanity.
How about anything but mass surveillance and getting more totalitarian in order for those who offer this to get away with things like that?
It’s not one-off by single government, read Jeffrey Epstein client-list in his court cases.
It is silly to expect solutions to “predators problem” proposed by predators themselves, obviously you’re their prey and their goal, they don’t care under which guise to eat you or your child.
It’s the biggest manipulation tactics since rise of humanity, time for us all to wise up.
And if someone is still seriously making an assumption that we can have a once-and-for-all solution to all the world problems:
- CSAM
- Racism
- Terrorism
- Wars
- Murder
- <insert whatever else>
Such solution can only look like one of two ways:
- Global permanent concentration camp (1984)
- Global altering of human nature medically and breaking basic human instincts to the point of believing that everyone live in utopia, while actually living in dystopia (Brave New World)
We have seen a lot of attempts for such “solutions” during XX century, some of them even survived in a form of North Korea.
Was that good, wise, kind, moral ideas and outcomes that were pushed under guise of equality, freedom, creating a new better human?
Do any of us really want to live in such situation again?
I certainly don’t.
I believe that living in a free society, loving your children and taking own responsibility for education about basic survival things in modern world, so that nobody can possibly abuse it in the internet or wherever else for that matter - is a good, noble way to solve that particular problem.
At the end of a day it’s either you have freedom and responsibility for yourself, your child’s future…or you delegate your and everyone else’s life completely to the will of some lunatics, because they know what’s better for you, because “it’s for the greater good”.
4 Likes
post deleted
2 Likes
Well there’s that for example.
Technically it’s highly illegal from the feds point of view, but in that particular case not many people would argue against such operation outcome i would imagine.
At least it’s classical spear-fishing fed operation, that doesn’t require to compromise any lawful citizen…except making bot-net out of some of them of course. 
Goes without saying, that stuff technically can also be horribly abused.
post deleted
Yeah that’s pretty much what that video is about, that should be enough to scare a lot of low-level stupid criminals i think (assuming that it’s known enough).
However there will always be dangerous and smart ones, that doesn’t even use internet, because they don’t want to get caught and killed in jail for what they’ve done.
I will share multiple links, its the follow up of the group i was talking about, prosecuted for using E2EE and free speech. Its in baguette 
but that show how the system protect is interest. How all of this bs against E2EE is planned with this type of justice.
Its heartbreaking that they have to go trough so much bs. One of they’re attorney is a figure of resistance against police repression in our country. So 
How about the good parts of the law. It’s not all bad or doom and gloom and it isn’t about outlawing E2EE. It’s a start to make platforms better, to hold them accountable to protect lives from being destroyed, to prevent criminal activity from happening in the dark behind a cloak of anonymity. It’s not mass surveillance and it’s not a solution for all the problems that happen over the Internet but it’s good place to start to get online platforms to do better, to do more to come up with solutions rather than do nothing.
I agree with this, but doing SOMETHING just to do something is a bad bad precedent. And more importantly - Let’s do what we should already been doing. . .
The police here in Los Angeles have just about given up on a great number of crimes because the criminals are just being rounded up and let go. They frankly won’t even bother with petty theft at all anymore. In the bay area - people are leaving their windows open in the cars now because theft has run so rampant, anyone with locked doors and windows up is assumed to be hiding something valuable in their car.
Let’s just start taking out known criminals. And heinous crimes? Hit people hard. Will it fix all crime? No, it’s impossible. There will always be new criminals.
We have so many laws, and so many laws that aren’t even enforced. Can we start enforcing the laws we have before creating new ones?
Peers have passed a controversial new law aimed at making social media firms more responsible for users’ safety on their platforms. (from article)
So, things said on facebook for instance, are said on facebook, with users knowing the lack of privacy in the user agreement (not that anyone actually reads them.)
They had never claimed to not be a privacy focused thing, on contrary, they made their living connecting people to people.
The slippery slope is how can this taken from socal media, to say - signal messenger, which can also be used on a computer. Now if this works for facebook, they can argue that signal is also forced to completely monitor every single user transaction within their users. Signal is used by journalists who need protected speech. How can we keep freedom of the speech, encrypted conversations while also monitoring every tiny type that ever goes across teh billioins of messages sent world wide everday?
You can’t.
It’s so important to look at all of the possible casualties of these things, and you can’t steam roll inalienable rights under the guise of safety, regardless if it saves a few people. The reality is you can never save everyone. It’s sad. The world is a terrible evil awful place, and history proves that will never change.
And more importantly, Facebook has BILLIONS of $$. They could just be good stewards oftheir millions of users and just directly forward all illegal activity directly to the police forces in their prospective jurisdictiosn and not even wait fora government injunction.
I mean, if this is so great and so great for everyone. . . why do we need a law to make it happen? They should. . . just do it? Instead of doing nothing. .. they could do exactly waht is proposed, and no law is required so that no freedoms of others aren’t being taken out as a casualty.
The only way to do this still for social media to “crackdown on social media content” is to:
1 Like
So true. We already have the laws, we just need to apply them when its a big company, that all.
2 Likes
You can’t look at everything in a Black & White thinking. That is just a thought pattern that makes you think in absolutes. That kind of thought pattern is considered to be a cognitive distortion because it keeps you from seeing life the way it really is: complex, uncertain, and constantly changing.
Black and white thinking doesn’t allow you to find the middle ground, which can be hard to sustain in life at those extremes. Becoming less rigid in our thinking lets us stop using “all or nothing” statements to depress ourselves without examining whether or not they’re true.
If you approach normal societal conflicts with extreme, black & white thinking you’ll often draw the wrong conclusions about other people’s intentions and miss opportunities to talk things out and compromise. Being less rigid and not having such hardened views is a better way to approach change. 
I’m not interesting in finding a middle ground when there is an option for much much greater freedom of choice for nearly 100% of folks. No reason to take away from some, when you can take from none. Why compromise, when everyone can have everything?! That’s just absurdity.
I’ll tell you what. It’s served me exceptionally well so far in at least my work life. And again, if a compromise is actually required, that’s totally different. But, if we’re looking at something and it’s a completely lose lose situation. The least worst choice is still the best. But compromising when there’s a solution that doesn’t require any party to lose out. . . that’s dogma. Taking away the rights of someone else to live under the views of another. I always avoid that. Always. 100% of the time. My goal in all things like this is 100% encompassing or as close as we can get. Black and white, no grey area required.
All I’m saying is I’m not looking at this or anything else in life from a negative lens. I see other sides to the picture and it’s bigger than just me. It encompasses us all for better or worse. Nothing is perfect and changes will always be necessary to try to make things better. If it doesn’t work out then it will have to be modified in some way or another in order to be as good as it gets. 
I see that as an opinion that I feel everyone should be allowed to decide. And if they are laws, they should absolutely ONLY be for the better. And unimously “the better” not just by some.
I try to look at every single possible outcome. Best case scenario to absolute worst case. I only look at big picture. So big, I want people I even disagree with to be able to have the choice to disagree with me, and we can both live our lives separately disagreeing but both being able to live with outcomes of our choices.
Doing something todo something isn’t the way to do it though. With Laws, historically we know they never get more lenient. So if we go too far on the first go, it stays that way. Always err on the side of the other.
I’m INSANELY skeptical of a 300 page law trying to get passed. If it were a good law, it shouldn’t take anywhere near that to explain and implement. That’s a huge red flag it’s absolute trash.
3 Likes
Don’t know what people outside of my country think about “universal declaration of human rights” but for me its really important. In this case specifically the article 12:
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
2 Likes
This say’s to me that you want to have it your way on your side of the fence and the others can have it their way on the other side. 
What has gone too far. It’s only a place of beginning to figure it out as the law gets implemented what provisions are best and what doesn’t work will get modified as needed. Hopefully there is cooperation and discussion and headway is made to tackle all problems on both sides. With the right intentions and like mind goals anything can be accomplished.
Of course! That’s exactly what I want! For everyone to live freely! Except there’s no fence to be on the side of. Imagine that same scenario you just said, except with no division, but equal freedom to choose. Very close though.
Please re-read the overwhelming majority of the last 500 + posts.
You’re stlll looking at things as two separate sides, and not one collective humanity with differing views. Don’t segretate folks, try to looking out for as close to 100% of people as possible.
This screams to me “if you have the same goals as me.” No offense man, the most horrible things in history have been due to “good intentions.” As long your goal is to control, and my goal is for freedom. . . we will never have like minded goals, and “anything can be accomplished” sounds like the type of thing someone who has an agenda for others would say.
1 Like
Not in the least!
Hear me out. Just imagine, someone create a machine that can read mind. Your government want to use it to find pedos and protect childrens. To do so they need to put devices everywhere, because you know a device that do that, probably have a range. Would you be ok with that ?
Its really far stretched but after reading so many of your take, pretty sure you will be ok ?!
Your interpretation of this is way off base…
Edit: It’s a lot more complex.