5 ms·

Unfortunately the government was wise to expand their power in a child porn case. It's very, very difficult to motivate to do anything in defense of such people

Unfortunately the government was wise to expand their power in a child porn case. It's very, very difficult to motivate to do anything in defense of such people. If only they'd gone after someone at least somewhat sympathetic!

micaksica 10y ago
> Unfortunately the government was wise to expand their power in a child porn case. The state is following the age-old tactic for expanding their power and authority: go after people others won't speak up for in fear of being labeled one of them. It's exactly what the Martin Niemöller quote is about. While I do not condone the behavior of these people or otherwise support their crime, kudos to EFF for being willing to stand up to the state on this. As we have learned, any liberty sacrificed to "law enforcement" agencies or sociopolitical elites will almost never be reverted. You'd think we would have learned that with the Patriot Act and "terrorism".
- x1798DE 10y ago
  > While I do not condone the behavior of these people or otherwise support their crime Probably doesn't help that you feel the need to mention this even when talking about the nature of the tactic used.
  - Hondor 10y ago
    Weak groups need to step on the heads of even weaker groups to gain influence. If anti-FBI-overreach activists appear to be aligned with pedophiles, that'll weaken the cause of the activists. Instead they should appear align themselves with some group that's more respected than themselves, like believers in the constitution. That's perhaps the reason pro-transsexual activists don't widely support Chelsea Manning or why bullied schoolkids aren't helped by the majority of the students who are all struggling to maintain their own image. Not that it's a very nice thing to do, it's just self-interest.
cloudjacker 10y ago
I like to have a thought exercise about the constitutional way to achieve the same result You Game?
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- mastazi 10y ago
  I'm not sure what you are trying to say. One of the reasons why the Constitution exists is that, thanks to its very existence, some things become unconstitutional. If we were to conclude that there isn't a constitutional way to achieve legalised mass surveillance, then we would have to conclude that that mass surveillance is unconstitutional. I would be quite happy with that conclusion, if I may add.
  - ikeboy 10y ago
    This case is about targeted, not mass, surveillance.
    - mastazi 10y ago
      What if the "target site" was Gmail? Would you still call it targeted surveillance? What's the limit under which we consider surveillance to be targeted? 100,000 users? One million? 10 millions?
      - nullc 10y ago
        Well... there probably is more child porn in gmail.
        mastazi 10y ago
        Exactly. As the article explains, "the FBI received a tip from a foreign law enforcement agency that a Tor Hidden Service site called “Playpen” was hosting child pornography". What if the FBI received a tip that Gmail users are hosting child pornography? Would they be allowed to infect Gmail users' computers?
axoltl 10y ago
This is exactly what they were trying to do in the San Bernadino case with the iPhone. They were trying to set a precedent using an 'indefensible' case. He was a terrorist! We should stop terrorism! It was never about that specific iPhone. Same thing here. If they get to use this technology here what's to stop them doing it in other cases?
- dmix 10y ago
  It's a shame defence attorneys get paid such low wages. They are the front line defence against this stuff and the state always has a strong advantage over them in every trial.
pstuart 10y ago
"think of the children!" It's like a all-access pass to unlimited trampling of privacy.
danarmak 10y ago
And, in fact, it's very difficult to motivate anyone to do anything in defense of anyone merely accused of viewing child porn who has not yet come to trial.

micaksica 10y ago

> Unfortunately the government was wise to expand their power in a child porn case. The state is following the age-old tactic for expanding their power and authority: go after people others won't speak up for in fear of being labeled one of them. It's exactly what the Martin Niemöller quote is about. While I do not condone the behavior of these people or otherwise support their crime, kudos to EFF for being willing to stand up to the state on this. As we have learned, any liberty sacrificed to "law enforcement" agencies or sociopolitical elites will almost never be reverted. You'd think we would have learned that with the Patriot Act and "terrorism".

x1798DE 10y ago
> While I do not condone the behavior of these people or otherwise support their crime Probably doesn't help that you feel the need to mention this even when talking about the nature of the tactic used.
- Hondor 10y ago
  Weak groups need to step on the heads of even weaker groups to gain influence. If anti-FBI-overreach activists appear to be aligned with pedophiles, that'll weaken the cause of the activists. Instead they should appear align themselves with some group that's more respected than themselves, like believers in the constitution. That's perhaps the reason pro-transsexual activists don't widely support Chelsea Manning or why bullied schoolkids aren't helped by the majority of the students who are all struggling to maintain their own image. Not that it's a very nice thing to do, it's just self-interest.

cloudjacker 10y ago

I like to have a thought exercise about the constitutional way to achieve the same result You Game?

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
mastazi 10y ago
I'm not sure what you are trying to say. One of the reasons why the Constitution exists is that, thanks to its very existence, some things become unconstitutional. If we were to conclude that there isn't a constitutional way to achieve legalised mass surveillance, then we would have to conclude that that mass surveillance is unconstitutional. I would be quite happy with that conclusion, if I may add.
- ikeboy 10y ago
  This case is about targeted, not mass, surveillance.
  - mastazi 10y ago
    What if the "target site" was Gmail? Would you still call it targeted surveillance? What's the limit under which we consider surveillance to be targeted? 100,000 users? One million? 10 millions?
    - nullc 10y ago
      Well... there probably is more child porn in gmail.
      - mastazi 10y ago
        Exactly. As the article explains, "the FBI received a tip from a foreign law enforcement agency that a Tor Hidden Service site called “Playpen” was hosting child pornography". What if the FBI received a tip that Gmail users are hosting child pornography? Would they be allowed to infect Gmail users' computers?

axoltl 10y ago

This is exactly what they were trying to do in the San Bernadino case with the iPhone. They were trying to set a precedent using an 'indefensible' case. He was a terrorist! We should stop terrorism! It was never about that specific iPhone. Same thing here. If they get to use this technology here what's to stop them doing it in other cases?

dmix 10y ago
It's a shame defence attorneys get paid such low wages. They are the front line defence against this stuff and the state always has a strong advantage over them in every trial.

pstuart 10y ago

"think of the children!" It's like a all-access pass to unlimited trampling of privacy.

danarmak 10y ago

And, in fact, it's very difficult to motivate anyone to do anything in defense of anyone merely accused of viewing child porn who has not yet come to trial.