Against ‘chat control’: we can’t eliminate child abuse by eliminating privacy (www.theguardian.com)
from HailSeitan@lemmy.world to privacy@lemmy.ml on 13 Oct 19:36
https://lemmy.world/post/37301150

Banning online anonymity tools like Tor won’t stop crime. It will only drive people underground and normalize government control over the internet

#privacy

threaded - newest

PiraHxCx@lemmy.ml on 13 Oct 19:51 next collapse

Some government any day now: To fight CP, we are going to make children illegal.

sleen@lemmy.zip on 13 Oct 19:56 next collapse

The biggest child abuser in this law is the government. All they are doing is using up all the loop holes in the UNCRC and human rights to manipulate their way into their “ultimate truth”.

ScoffingLizard@lemmy.dbzer0.com on 13 Oct 20:49 next collapse

It was never about child abuse. It is about eliminating competition of federated media.

sleen@lemmy.zip on 13 Oct 21:31 next collapse

The corpos and the government lick each others boots - it’s a 2-way relationship. They care more about the abusers than the victims in this regard. Children is just a term designed to go against its populace, and more harm being done in the long run.

ominouslemon@sh.itjust.works on 13 Oct 22:32 collapse

It’s about surveillance. Federated services are not a threat to big tech since it’s so small

irmadlad@lemmy.world on 13 Oct 21:04 next collapse

Banning online anonymity tools like Tor won’t stop crime.

Prohibition has never been a deterrent to consumption. Laws and law enforcement do not prevent, they just prosecute. I do come down hard on the parental groups when it comes to the safety, security, and privacy of their children. Mandating laws that dole out heavy fines to parents for their unsupervised children’s online and offline activities would seem to me to be a good point to deviate from. However, we legislate to the lowest common denominator, and this gives governments the inroads they crave to keep tabs on their citizenry.

What I would like to hear are some solutions that protect the children, keep the terrorists at bay, and still has room for individual privacy, anonymity, and security. I certainly don’t want children to be involved with activities that will harm them. At the same time, I’d rather avoid a buccal cell cheek swab every time I want to see some flesh or engage in other adult only activities.

lunatique@lemmy.ml on 13 Oct 21:32 next collapse

If your neighbor wanted to hear all your phone calls, just to make sure you’re a safe neighbor to be around, people wouldn’t tolerate it. So they certainly shouldn’t tolerate the government wanting to see all your messages and what you’re talking about.

mistermodal@lemmy.ml on 13 Oct 22:35 next collapse

The correct way to eliminate human trafficking and child abuse is capital controls. Bring the fucking bankers to heel. You don’t have the credibility to talk like this while you work hand-in-glove with skinsuits like Jamie Dimon and the coterie of coin operated policymakers that calls itself western democracy. So the intention is not to use credibility, but something much quicker.

umbrella@lemmy.ml on 13 Oct 22:56 collapse

i mean its the guardian. i don’t know why i’m seeing it so much on lemmy lately.

LavaPlanet@sh.itjust.works on 13 Oct 23:36 collapse

Does anyone really believe it was ever about protecting the kids? I thought it was super obvious it’s about mass surveillance. It’s so they can link a database of *exactly who is saying what. And then do something evil af with that info, yeah? It’s just being poorly framed as “protecting kids” so no one can object, then they look like they don’t “care about kids”. Even though there’s so much proof it doesn’t help kids. What would help kids is parents who are able to be with their kids, rather than have to work fingers to bone to just scrape by. They could do information packages for parents, informing them of the risks and how to mitigate, as has been done before. This empowers no one, even if you believe their whole diatribe.