3 ms·

Why would you be arrested for taking drugs? Because you're driving on drugs perhaps? The "think of the children" argument is based on personal experience, mind

Why would you be arrested for taking drugs? Because you're driving on drugs perhaps? The "think of the children" argument is based on personal experience, mind you, I sincerely hope for you that you will never understand the relation, ever.

ttybird2 5y ago
"Why would you be arrested for taking drugs?" Because it's illegal? "The "think of the children" argument is based on personal experience, mind you, I sincerely hope for you that you will never understand the relation, ever." 1: I doubt it 2: You too, I hope that you (or your children!) will never be prosecuted for a victimless crime.
- 1337shadow 5y ago
  If you take drugs at your home and don't cause any incident, there is absolutely 0 chance that you get arrested. The idea is not to have a camera in everyone's home to send the police every time someone takes a drug, the idea is to punish people who get caught taking drugs because they are causing incidents, such as car accidents, or highly risking to, such as driving after consuming drugs. Same with this law: if you're not seriously suspected of any felony then the state will not be able to request decryption of your data. I'm sorry to say my children and myself have suffered from a criminal that took years to catch, I hope we will fully recover one day but sincerely doubt it, but I'm glad this makes you laugh at least that makes two people laughing about it.
  - ttybird2 5y ago
    "The idea is not to have a camera in everyone's home" The funny thing is that this is basically what this and any other anti-e2ee regulation is about. "If you take drugs at your home and don't cause any incident, there is absolutely 0 chance that you get arrested." Yet it is still illegal and people are still being arrested for ordering drugs and producing their own, how curious. "my children and myself have suffered from a criminal that took years to catch" Did that criminal use drugs or end-to-end-encryption? Responding to your edit: "Same with this law: if you're not seriously suspected of any felony then the state will not be able to request decryption of your data." We both know that this is simply not true. "but I'm glad this makes you laugh at least that makes two people laughing about it." Not laughting, and if it is true I hope that you recover. I am just (hopefully understandably) a sceptic when it comes to anecdotes in this sort of arguments.
    - 1337shadow 5y ago
      > The funny thing is that this is basically what this and any other anti-e2ee regulation is about. Because you refuse to understand that we only want suspect communications, not all of them, and also that we don't want to break encryption to acheive that because the person might as well be innocent. > Yet it is still illegal and people are still being arrested for ordering drugs and producing their own, how curious. You won't until there is a problem that alerts the authority. > Did that criminal use drugs or end-to-end-encryption? Yes and yes, add much more. > We both know that this is simply not true. I disagree. Anyway, I've been prosecuted on wrong basis myself, and got out winner, I'm not affraid this is going to change. I trust my state, my police, my judges, who are independent and who will have to issue a mandate based on serious suspicious before they read my communications. Because, that's how present reality works.
      - ttybird2 5y ago
        "Because you refuse to understand that we only want suspect communications, not all of them" Yet you are endangering all of the communications, not only the suspect ones. Kinda like having a mandatory camera in every home and promising to access it only when you claim that the person living in the house is a suspect. (Yet always having the ability to access it) "You won't until there is a problem that alerts the authority." In that case * Why is it still illegal then? * How are you so sure? I remember various cases from the US where they jail someone (usually an african-american) just for having some hashish on them. * "a problem that alerts the authority" such as your neighbour noticing that you are growing some and calling the police on you, or just ordering some online. "Yes and yes, add much more." Kinda hard to believe this anecdote but oh well. "I've been prosecuted on wrong basis myself, and got out winner, I'm not affraid this is going to change. I trust my state, my police, my judges, who are independent and who will have to issue a mandate based on serious suspicious before they read my communications." If this is true then I am glad that you are fine, it must have been a very stressful, expensive, and tiresome process. Sadly a lot of people (espesially these living in authoritarian countries or these with a judical system biased towards the prosecutor or the police and against poor people and racial minorities) did not have the same luck. "that's how present reality works." No offense but it sounds like propaganda to me. Anyone who has been monitoring the news (or who just check HN once in a while) knows that this is not the case.

ttybird2 5y ago

"Why would you be arrested for taking drugs?" Because it's illegal? "The "think of the children" argument is based on personal experience, mind you, I sincerely hope for you that you will never understand the relation, ever." 1: I doubt it 2: You too, I hope that you (or your children!) will never be prosecuted for a victimless crime.

1337shadow 5y ago
If you take drugs at your home and don't cause any incident, there is absolutely 0 chance that you get arrested. The idea is not to have a camera in everyone's home to send the police every time someone takes a drug, the idea is to punish people who get caught taking drugs because they are causing incidents, such as car accidents, or highly risking to, such as driving after consuming drugs. Same with this law: if you're not seriously suspected of any felony then the state will not be able to request decryption of your data. I'm sorry to say my children and myself have suffered from a criminal that took years to catch, I hope we will fully recover one day but sincerely doubt it, but I'm glad this makes you laugh at least that makes two people laughing about it.
- ttybird2 5y ago
  "The idea is not to have a camera in everyone's home" The funny thing is that this is basically what this and any other anti-e2ee regulation is about. "If you take drugs at your home and don't cause any incident, there is absolutely 0 chance that you get arrested." Yet it is still illegal and people are still being arrested for ordering drugs and producing their own, how curious. "my children and myself have suffered from a criminal that took years to catch" Did that criminal use drugs or end-to-end-encryption? Responding to your edit: "Same with this law: if you're not seriously suspected of any felony then the state will not be able to request decryption of your data." We both know that this is simply not true. "but I'm glad this makes you laugh at least that makes two people laughing about it." Not laughting, and if it is true I hope that you recover. I am just (hopefully understandably) a sceptic when it comes to anecdotes in this sort of arguments.
  - 1337shadow 5y ago
    > The funny thing is that this is basically what this and any other anti-e2ee regulation is about. Because you refuse to understand that we only want suspect communications, not all of them, and also that we don't want to break encryption to acheive that because the person might as well be innocent. > Yet it is still illegal and people are still being arrested for ordering drugs and producing their own, how curious. You won't until there is a problem that alerts the authority. > Did that criminal use drugs or end-to-end-encryption? Yes and yes, add much more. > We both know that this is simply not true. I disagree. Anyway, I've been prosecuted on wrong basis myself, and got out winner, I'm not affraid this is going to change. I trust my state, my police, my judges, who are independent and who will have to issue a mandate based on serious suspicious before they read my communications. Because, that's how present reality works.
    - ttybird2 5y ago
      "Because you refuse to understand that we only want suspect communications, not all of them" Yet you are endangering all of the communications, not only the suspect ones. Kinda like having a mandatory camera in every home and promising to access it only when you claim that the person living in the house is a suspect. (Yet always having the ability to access it) "You won't until there is a problem that alerts the authority." In that case * Why is it still illegal then? * How are you so sure? I remember various cases from the US where they jail someone (usually an african-american) just for having some hashish on them. * "a problem that alerts the authority" such as your neighbour noticing that you are growing some and calling the police on you, or just ordering some online. "Yes and yes, add much more." Kinda hard to believe this anecdote but oh well. "I've been prosecuted on wrong basis myself, and got out winner, I'm not affraid this is going to change. I trust my state, my police, my judges, who are independent and who will have to issue a mandate based on serious suspicious before they read my communications." If this is true then I am glad that you are fine, it must have been a very stressful, expensive, and tiresome process. Sadly a lot of people (espesially these living in authoritarian countries or these with a judical system biased towards the prosecutor or the police and against poor people and racial minorities) did not have the same luck. "that's how present reality works." No offense but it sounds like propaganda to me. Anyone who has been monitoring the news (or who just check HN once in a while) knows that this is not the case.