EU attempt to sneak through new encryption-eroding law slammed by Signal, politicians
EU attempt to sneak through new encryption-eroding law slammed by Signal, politicians
If you call 'client-side scanning' something like 'upload moderation,' it still undermines privacy, security
You're viewing a single thread.
If u make privacy illegal then only criminals will have privacy.
If u make privacy illegal then only cops, spooks, governments, billionaires and other criminals will have privacy. FTFY.
Yep, you just said the same thing with more words ๐
If u make privacy illegal then only
copscriminals,spookscriminals,governmentscriminals,billionairescriminals and other criminals will have privacy. FTFY.FTFY.
That also works for guns.
You can't murder a room full of children with pgp.
Say that again after you sit the same IT exams as I did.
Not with that kind of attitude!
I already have a chainsaw for that kind of thing, that does this have to do with guns and encryption?
Yeah, that's the point. What do guns have to do with encryption? I could say "If you outlaw beards, only outlaws will have beards" and it will make as much sense as your original post. I appreciate that you have a weird fetish for violence but you don't have to shoe-horn it into every conversation.
Privacy and guns can be used for defense. Beards generally don't affect that (though Alexander was of a different opinion and made his soldiers shave so that they couldn't be grabbed by the beard ; I think same was the reasoning for Roman soldiers shaving their beards and other hair).
You canโt murder a room full of children with pgp.
I'll just say it again in the hope that it might dawn on you that the two things are not even remotely similar enough that you can say "this also works for guns".
I've already described specifically how they are similar, it might dawn on you that repetition doesn't strengthen an argument. Not hopeful though.
What? That they can both be used for defense? Name something that couldn't ever be used for defense. Your comparison is pointless because the only trait they share is one which is also shared by pretty much everything else on the planet. Like beards, to bring up an earlier example.
They are both intended for defense.
I think it's safe to say guns are an offensive weapon
Only in the only country that believes that.
What? You think criminals don't have guns in yours?
By the way, a country can't believe anything, it's an artificial concept on a map.
Unironically yes. Out of 1000 crime news I hear about here, maybe one of them is about gun violence. Also I have never ever heard about mass killings here like USA seems to have every week.
Look up stats, because what's reported in media is always quite different.
Lol is it really that hard for you to believe? I am not just talking about media channels, also just word around the block, multiple YouTube channels and such.
Not that hard. I'd say organized crime will have guns regardless. Usual hooligans will do with many things one can imagine.
Yes and those organised crimes are almost non existant and not even close to the violence in US.
That's what I think. That's what I observed (anecdotally) and what statistics show. When the sentence for having a gun is higher than robbery or drug dealing or whatever, even criminals avoid that shit.
Why would you think criminals DO have guns in other countries?
So is obtuseness and pedantry.
Sorry I made you fail.
You can be anti-guns but he is still right. Criminals do have weapons where I live, even though it's illegal. Fortunately, we don't have many criminals since the country is rich
That's a weird answer, I didn't say that obtuseness\pedantry can believe in something.
You made nobody fail, accusing someone of these traits just means their correctness is socially unpleasant for you.
Sorry for your loss.
Uhh have you heard? Constitutional rights are ala cart now! Just pick and choose what you want! No big deal.
I've always been reluctant to rely on papers like any constitution as a base for my perceived rights.
Maybe as an argument, in the sense of "smart people have said that it should be and made some points in its favor".
But in general it's a horrid mistake to rely on a paper. Some people you haven't given any consent will stamp a few saying that you are a slave and oops.
The reality is that there's no way to consistently defend a right suppressed by legal arguments. If you can check the chain of laws giving you some right or taking it, you'll always come to the point where it's just "we all decide that's law" and you were not part of that decision. And if you go the opposite way and just accept what's made law, then you are dropping the idea of rights in its entirety, making decisions made by someone else a law for you.
My point is that this is unsolvable and one can't replace good and evil with legal arguments. Laws will never be sufficiently good for that, even constitutional laws.
So I'm for right to arm oneself, but I don't think there's any magic allowing to universally prove that a thing is legally right or wrong.
Which is why, again, a journalism which isn't outrageous is just public relations, a protest that doesn't harm economy and break laws is just a demonstration, an a principle which can be overridden by a law or a threat of force is just virtue signalling.