You know the old adage, "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear."It usually gets countered by saying "Well, when a future law that opposes my rights is implemented, I want to stay out of it."To that I say, aren't you basically saying "We should disallow chat control because a crime is a necessary part of a free country"?You probably already don't agree with many laws set in place, so what difference will one more law do? It's no different from saying "I oppose chat control because I am a [future] criminal."
Laws should not be enacted, ever, unless they are absolutely necessary for protecting the backbone of society. Anything of lesser value than that should not exist, to preserve the freedom of the people inside that society.
>>107718717How do you resolve a conflict where a neighbor stores his trash on your lawn?
>>107718093No. It's about government overreach. When you don't trust your government to have your best interests in mind then you would like them to have as little leverage and power over you as possible.
>>107718736So in a world without government overreach, you would advocate for chat control?
>>107718742In a world where it is somehow guaranteed that it will only be used to catch criminals as defined by laws established through democratic processes with 0% false positive rate? yeah sureThat world doesn't exist though
>>107718093Laws can get pretty ridiculous>this 1 guy shot killed cops with a gun stored in his underwear so traffic cops are allowed to stick their hands in you and your kids panties in the event of a traffic stopIs basically synonymous to>Thai one guy was hoarding child porn so we'll be forcing tech companies like apple to scan every file on your device while could companies will do the same for files stored on the cloud
>>107718724That is a civil matter. The law has no reason to get involved in that.
>>107718761Okay, I was just making sure.I am not even playing devil's advocate, by the way. I don't think there is anything wrong with being a criminal in the absence of a moral interpretation.We seem to accept this when it comes to socially-conformed topics, e.g. freedom of speech (in a dictatorship)We don't seem to accept this when it comes to more "benign" crimes that don't have an obvious net effect calculation. I argue that society ought to preserve opportunities to commit crimes. The idea is to prevent society from moral stagnation and to prevent the infringement of individual actions that do not cause significant harm to others. The fact that no one discusses this aspect in a society that is built on individualism is very strange to me.
>>107718093Being normal and speaking with common sense have become criminal activity as far as the powers that be are concerned, therefore "something to hide" for the sake of your own life.
>To that I say, aren't you basically saying "We should disallow chat control because a crime is a necessary part of a free country"?When there is a contradiction between the law and morality, man has an obligation to break the law. Freedom, in particular, requires breaking the law when freedom is threatened. Do you know how we formed our country, OP? Do you think we did a peaceful protest against the British? No, OP, we shot them. We murdered them. If we did not commit murder, we would not be free. Or how about the end of slavery, how was that accomplished? It required that we killed the southerners who rebelled, and also burned down their houses. Sherman's March to the Sea would almost certainly be considered a war crime nowadays, but it was fully necessary to demoralize the slave-owning south.So it is that if our right to privacy is stripped away, particularly as a pretext to allow for further tyranny, it will be fully necessary to engage in violence again. But we don't have to go in that direction. We can keep our liberty at the level it is now, and no blood needs to be shed. Or you can fuck around and find out. Sic Semper Evello Mortem Tyrannis. Thus always I bring death to tyrants.
>>107718093>"If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear."Everyone has plenty to hide. It's a hostile world.
>>107718093I have lots to hide and I want every person who means me harm to die an agonizing death.
>>107718093>We should disallow chat control because a crime is a necessary part of a free countryYes. Some crime is inevitable as a consequence of freedom. Restricting speech won't stop crime, though, since criminals will just use illegal, unrestricted channels. If (((they))) really cared about stopping crime, they wouldn't be importing millions of turd world criminals into Europe.
>>107718947What if I don't mean you harm, but instead mean you arm? That is, I want to provide you with arms and ammunition.
What happened to /g/ ?This thread makes sense and posters are somewhat smart.Is the board healing or bots fully took over ?
>>107718802OP. Respond to this.
>>107718802and who is going to enforce a resolution when your neighbor dumps 1 tonne off the back of a trailer?
>>107719061Doesn't mean you need a law for that.Common sense is a thing.
>>107719029This will go on your performance review, agent.
>>107718093>nothing to hideThat's not a sensible starting point to begin with. It makes as much sense as saying "if you aren't speeding you don't mind if we search your anus". People shouldn't have to suffer by having to expose everything about them at all times even when they haven't done anything. The correct way to say this would be "I have nothing to show". When you disagree you better have a reason and some evidence first. My life is private before that. The police will have to do some legwork in order to catch the criminals but that's necessary so that regular people don't have to be involved in this.
>>107719069What common sense? You think no one’s neighbour has ever gone out of their way to trash another’s property?You are just avoiding saying that it’s actually a criminality issue because you’ve been btfo by a single example.
>>107718093>mandate the mass surveillance of private digital communications for all 450 million EU citizensYou're completely deranged.Exterminate yourself.
>new text still incentivizes "voluntary" mass surveillance and introduces mandatory age verification for all communication services, potentially ending online anonymityWhat kind of fucking retard would conceive let alone propose such a deranged set of ideas?
Chat Control attempts to turn your private device (your "digital brain") into a state informant. By scanning data before it is encrypted, the government effectively places a camera inside your home, watching you write the letter instead of stealing or opening the envelope.
>>107718093>You know the old adage, "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.">It usually gets countered by saying "Well, when a future law that opposes my rights is implemented, I want to stay out of it."No, I oppose chat control because I have my pride and is not a cattle
>>107718724Me, personally? I'd move away. But exterminating such a disgusting creature is also a moral and righteous enforcement of their karmic debt.
>>107718742>in a world without government overreachYOU IGNORANT FUCKING RETARD.KILL YOURSELF.
>>107719029I see no problem with that.
Proponents of these kinds of laws are attempting to exterminate the "vulnerability" of unmonitored speech, even if it requires destroying the stability of end-to-end encryption to do it. Disgusting!
>>107719363Ahh yes, the sanity of lolberts on full display. Go move to Somalia, see how your ideal society turns out for you.
