So the implication is that keeping the masses in check is the primary goal and protecting the children was the incidental part?
this post was submitted on 19 Jun 2024
446 points (99.3% liked)
Privacy
32013 readers
1038 users here now
A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.
Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.
In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.
Some Rules
- Posting a link to a website containing tracking isn't great, if contents of the website are behind a paywall maybe copy them into the post
- Don't promote proprietary software
- Try to keep things on topic
- If you have a question, please try searching for previous discussions, maybe it has already been answered
- Reposts are fine, but should have at least a couple of weeks in between so that the post can reach a new audience
- Be nice :)
Related communities
Chat rooms
-
[Matrix/Element]Dead
much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
We do this to find criminals, drugsdealers, paedophiles and terrorists. MEPS are never part of any of those groups.
Source: trust me bro >.>
Rules for thee and not for me.
Just remember "terrorism" is a generic term these days. Russia invaded Ukraine over "terrorism."
It wouldn't shock me if they started carefully monitoring political views to detect anything the state doesn't like.
Started?
as always
Protecting children has never been an intention or an outcome with these laws.
How to contact your MEP. We beat this bill last time, we can beat it again https://www.europarl.europa.eu/meps/en/home
it‘s still the old list of MEPs, right?
As far as I can tell, yes
Absolutely not. If anything, public officials would be the one group whose messaging I would understand being scanned so that the people can sort of keep them on check. But again, implementing such possibility that would still weaken security of everyone else as well so of course it should not actually be done.
Privacy for me, not for the...
The law must apply to all, including public servants. As they are beholden to the public, they are subject to review and FOIA requests are automatically granted for the content.
Remember the rule of authoritarians: if someone wants to stop you from being suspicious, they want to stop you from doing the same things they've done.
The law must apply to all, including public servants. As they are beholden to the public, they are subject to review and FOIA requests are automatically granted for the content.
Now I'm suddenly not so against this law. Journalists paradise. They'll have a field day!
It would just result in them having official and unofficial devices, where all the things they don't want linked to their person, political party or public knowledge is on a different device that isn't going to get caught in the FOIA requests.
How about making every message of government officials be public and saved in easily searchable database for the populace and make content of their screens be streamed 24/7? No? Why? Nothing to hide nothing to fear? Right?
You stupid fuck.
You think they use official devices for all their stuff?
HAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAAA
No.
Hahahaha... No.
You (potentially) voted for this. You will suffer it as well!
Also all of my and everyones correspondence is confidental, now what? We in Germany have a law (Postgeheimnis) for that as well!
How else will they continue to exchange illegal images with each other?
Fucking hypocritic idiots.
Rules for thee but not for me.
Found the real pedos lmao
Is this a shock to anyone?