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.

>>107718717
How do you resolve a conflict where a neighbor stores his trash on your lawn?

>>107718093
No. 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.

>>107718736
So in a world without government overreach, you would advocate for chat control?

>>107718742
In 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 sure
That world doesn't exist though

>>107718093
Laws 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 stop
Is 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

>>107718724
That is a civil matter. The law has no reason to get involved in that.

>>107718761
Okay, 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.

>>107718093
Being 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.

>>107718093
I 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 country
Yes. 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.

>>107718947
What 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 ?

>>107718802
OP. Respond to this.

>>107718802
and who is going to enforce a resolution when your neighbor dumps 1 tonne off the back of a trailer?

>>107719061
Doesn't mean you need a law for that.
Common sense is a thing.

>>107719029
This will go on your performance review, agent.

>>107718093
>nothing to hide
That'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.

>>107719069
What 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 citizens
You're completely deranged.
Exterminate yourself.

>new text still incentivizes "voluntary" mass surveillance and introduces mandatory age verification for all communication services, potentially ending online anonymity
What 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

>>107718724
Me, 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 overreach
YOU IGNORANT FUCKING RETARD.
KILL YOURSELF.

>>107719029
I 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!

>>107719363
Ahh yes, the sanity of lolberts on full display.
Go move to Somalia, see how your ideal society turns out for you.

>>107719832
Explain how, in any universe, it is acceptable to dump litter on my property when I never did anything to you? That's called a NAP violation. Eliminating the chance of subsequent violations is completely moral... almost obligatory for ones sanity, peace of mind, and wellbeing. Unfortunately it is typically illegal to do so therefore the next best course of action is to completely avoid such a disgusting creature.

>>107719960
>drops a can on your lawn
>YOU VIOLATED THE NAP! YOU WERE CLEARLY BEING AGGRESSIVE! BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM
you are a monkey

>>107719312
They're not stupid. They know exactly what this will do. It's on purpose.

>>107719977
>>drops a can on your lawn
>>YOU VIOLATED THE NAP! YOU WERE CLEARLY BEING AGGRESSIVE! BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM
Unironically though.
>you are a monkey
I am completely unimpressed by any ideology that does not respect my property rights.

>>107718093
>crime is a necessary part of a free country
"Necessary" in the sense of an unavoidable logical implication.

>You probably already don't agree with many laws set in place, so what difference will one more law do?
None. It's another huge concession to "people" that should be lynched and hanged from lamp posts and their cattle, that should be terrorized into silence, humiliated and eventually segregated away from civilized society.

>>107719426
I'm not sure they understood what end-to-end encryption was before they proposed this. Nor do they seem to understand its necessity for all sorts of digital communications, not just messages.

>>107718093
If the victim doesn't exist, the crime shouldn't either.

Stop beating around the bush. Your "crime" is always people jacking off to something you don't like.

>>107718093
youre an idiot OP, and you dont deserve an answer to your stupidity, you need to go through the process of touching the stove to find out what a burned hand means. Youre not intelligent by any metric, youre an NPC, you need to go through the humiliation process of making up your stupid rules and getting ruined by them in order to evolve into something just a tiny bit higher than an NPC

>>107720088
>If the victim doesn't exist, the crime shouldn't either.
This 70 IQ take is what allows degenerate ideas to proliferate and eventually flourish into the totalitarianism you're whinging about. You consent to it.

>>107720105
>and eventually flourish into the totalitarianism
yeah... because of reactionaries like you lmfao

>>107718825
this poster doesn't return his cart to a stall

>>107718093
Nobody gets to decide whether or not I have something to hide.

>>107720122
>reactionaries
Forgot to add this to the filter. No one who uses this term is human.

>107720135
>No one who uses this term is human.
Ah, so you're unironically retarded.

>>107720105
>This 70 IQ take is what allows degenerate ideas to proliferate and eventually flourish into the totalitarianism
/thread
in the few genuinely free societies that ever existed, undermining the basic values and the very ethos of your community would result in brutal punishment as a matter of common sense self-preservation

OP do you happen to live in this thing called reality?

>>107720105
probably the dumbest post in this entire thread

>>107720105
What? How?

Are you suggesting "your side" of free speech should be protected because the "other side" of free speech will choose authoritarianism? Because that's the most retarded non-sequitur I have ever read in decades on this site.

If you can't pinpoint a victim, there is no guilt. Nebulous concepts like "society", "muh children", "good morals" are not victims. If you can't pinpoint natural persons affected there is no guilt and there should be no crime.

Also. Yes, people will choose authoritarianism any other day because being afraid to die is what enables hierarchies in an instinctual level. All the good things of civilization have defied that instinct. All attempts against freedom of speech should be opposed.

>>107720176
I'm suggesting that every time you invoke "free speech" or any other nonsensical Western value, you consent to be a slave to the oligarchy you claim to oppose. This is by design. Everything they do to their cattle is by direct public consent. They play by this rule with remarkable consistency.

>>107718093
If Bilderberg and others groups and institutions are doing their discussions behind closed doors, why shouldn't I be able to too?
Literally how can you rationalise (or rather cope) that billionaires are entilted to privacy but average people aren't?

>>107720189
>muh oligarchy
>nuh-uh, you consent even if you say you don't
Dumbass schizo.

>>107720203
>Literally how can you rationalise (or rather cope) that billionaires are entilted to privacy but average people aren't?
They are your betters. You are their inferior. They have a right to do whatever they want. You have the privilege to do whatever they allow. You should have read the terms of service.

>>107720222
If you don't consent, stop actively serving their interests, starting from today. Don't consume their products. Don't participate in their economic system. Don't work for their slaveholders. Don't abide by their laws. Don't use their infrastructure. Don't appeal to their courts. Don't sing praises to their mock legislature and the faux "rights" it gives you. :^)

>>107718093
Before I even address your core argument, immediately share the contents of your private messages and no censoring, c'mon, chop chop