7 ms·

I think those of us who value our privacy are going to have to draw a line sooner or later. Do we want to combat child sexual abuse? Yes, but not at any cost.

I think those of us who value our privacy are going to have to draw a line sooner or later. Do we want to combat child sexual abuse? Yes, but not at any cost. Are there things more important than combating child sexual abuse? Yes, such as our digital privacy. Are we willing to make the job of the authorities more difficult in combating child abuse in the name of privacy? The answer is yes. Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

zthrowaway 4y ago
These people couldn’t care less. The line should have already been drawn but people keep falling for this emotional trickery that all politicians use. Packaging up something that nobody agrees with, with a noble cause that nobody would disagree with on the surface. If you oppose this then I guess you oppose child sexual abuse! You wouldn’t want to look like a bad person would you? </s>
throwaway0a5e 4y ago
Drawing such a line is unfortunately fundamentally incompatible with current western attitudes. You need to be able to have adult discussions about death and harm that WILL happen at the scales we're talking about. These harms are often easy to calculate. The harms that come from surveillance dragnets are less immediate and harder to calculate. So in addition to be able to have a discussion that we're incapable of having, we also need to have the balls to say "this long term non-specific harm of the surveillance state is worse than a few kids getting abused". We're nowhere near being able to do either of those right now. Freedom isn't free but the only people who will talk about the cost are extremists of various flavors.
- smolder 4y ago
  > we also need to have the balls to say "this long term non-specific harm of the surveillance state is worse than a few kids getting abused". There is a false assumption here that such a surveillance program would even be effective and not just a stepping stone to arguing for more invasive measures when it doesn't fix anything. The better argument is "this long term non-specific harm of government surveillance is worse than the harm it would successfully prevent to children." And then you can go on to describe the specific harms that state surveillance and overreach has brought about or enabled...
  - throwaway0a5e 4y ago
    >There is a false assumption here that such a surveillance program would even be effective and not just a stepping stone to arguing for more invasive measures when it doesn't fix anything. It's a false assumption you're gonna have to argue against so get used to it. In the minds of people who want this crap the harm of a surveillance state is not a guaranteed thing. They think there will be "reasonable access controls" and other fantasy stuff like that.

zthrowaway 4y ago

These people couldn’t care less. The line should have already been drawn but people keep falling for this emotional trickery that all politicians use. Packaging up something that nobody agrees with, with a noble cause that nobody would disagree with on the surface. If you oppose this then I guess you oppose child sexual abuse! You wouldn’t want to look like a bad person would you? </s>

throwaway0a5e 4y ago

Drawing such a line is unfortunately fundamentally incompatible with current western attitudes. You need to be able to have adult discussions about death and harm that WILL happen at the scales we're talking about. These harms are often easy to calculate. The harms that come from surveillance dragnets are less immediate and harder to calculate. So in addition to be able to have a discussion that we're incapable of having, we also need to have the balls to say "this long term non-specific harm of the surveillance state is worse than a few kids getting abused". We're nowhere near being able to do either of those right now. Freedom isn't free but the only people who will talk about the cost are extremists of various flavors.

smolder 4y ago
> we also need to have the balls to say "this long term non-specific harm of the surveillance state is worse than a few kids getting abused". There is a false assumption here that such a surveillance program would even be effective and not just a stepping stone to arguing for more invasive measures when it doesn't fix anything. The better argument is "this long term non-specific harm of government surveillance is worse than the harm it would successfully prevent to children." And then you can go on to describe the specific harms that state surveillance and overreach has brought about or enabled...
- throwaway0a5e 4y ago
  >There is a false assumption here that such a surveillance program would even be effective and not just a stepping stone to arguing for more invasive measures when it doesn't fix anything. It's a false assumption you're gonna have to argue against so get used to it. In the minds of people who want this crap the harm of a surveillance state is not a guaranteed thing. They think there will be "reasonable access controls" and other fantasy stuff like that.