4 ms·

> The analogy to terrorism is interesting because, during the Bush-era War on Terror, there was a sense of literally anything being justified in the name of sto

by floren 4y ago

> The analogy to terrorism is interesting because, during the Bush-era War on Terror, there was a sense of literally anything being justified in the name of stopping terrorism. The US government was secretly spying on its own citizens. Yeah, Wired, they only did the spying during the Bush era... edit: I guess it was less secret after the Bush era > It's even harder to say, look, we've got to accept that some amount of child exploitation is going to happen and people are going to use digital tools to spread it. But at some point, I think you do have to defend the principle that we have to tolerate a certain amount of even the very worst things if we want to have meaningful civil liberties. Not a very popular argument at this particular instant in time / news, bold of them to write this without a giant asterisk.

_jal 4y ago
> we've got to accept that some amount of child exploitation is going to happen Funny, that's the exact deal with have with guns - we accept some amount of mass child murder as the cost of the 2nd Amendment. Another datapoint that the 2nd is now considered more absolute the 1st.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
bsder 4y ago
> It's even harder to say, look, we've got to accept that some amount of child exploitation is going to happen Except that every big kiddie porn case was cracked by old-fashioned policework--"Get someone inside". And, most of the time, it isn't even that difficult to pull off. It particularly grinds my gears because the powers that be only trot out kiddie porn when they want to shove legislation down our throats. The rest of the time enforcement against kiddie porn stays heavily underfunded.
r3trohack3r 4y ago
> Yeah, Wired, they only did the spying during the Bush era... edit: I guess it was less secret after the Bush era I don’t understand - it never ended. In fact, Obama ran on a platform of protecting whistleblowers and cracking down on government overreach. But, once he took office, he legalized the Presidential Surveillance Program that Snowden whistleblew and doubled down on pursuing Snowden.
- floren 4y ago
  I was attempting sarcasm, because as you say, Obama loved that surveillance shit.
r3trohack3r 4y ago
> It's even harder to say, look, we've got to accept that some amount of child exploitation is going to happen and people are going to use digital tools to spread it. But at some point, I think you do have to defend the principle that we have to tolerate a certain amount of even the very worst things if we want to have meaningful civil liberties. This is not how I’d articulate it. We tolerate some terrible things because trying to stop them would be even worse. There are really bad people out there. Unfortunately those bad people can also run for office and/or get hired on to 3 letter agencies. A pedophile with a camera is less dangerous than a senator without the 4th amendment. A racist on social media is less dangerous than a president without the first amendment. Fascism doesn’t happen because you elect a fascist president. The seeds of fascism had to be sown long before that. Fascism is the result of eroding protections designed to prevent a leader from over-reaching. The path to fascism is paved in good intentions.

by floren 4y ago

_jal 4y ago

> we've got to accept that some amount of child exploitation is going to happen Funny, that's the exact deal with have with guns - we accept some amount of mass child murder as the cost of the 2nd Amendment. Another datapoint that the 2nd is now considered more absolute the 1st.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

bsder 4y ago

> It's even harder to say, look, we've got to accept that some amount of child exploitation is going to happen Except that every big kiddie porn case was cracked by old-fashioned policework--"Get someone inside". And, most of the time, it isn't even that difficult to pull off. It particularly grinds my gears because the powers that be only trot out kiddie porn when they want to shove legislation down our throats. The rest of the time enforcement against kiddie porn stays heavily underfunded.

r3trohack3r 4y ago

> Yeah, Wired, they only did the spying during the Bush era... edit: I guess it was less secret after the Bush era I don’t understand - it never ended. In fact, Obama ran on a platform of protecting whistleblowers and cracking down on government overreach. But, once he took office, he legalized the Presidential Surveillance Program that Snowden whistleblew and doubled down on pursuing Snowden.

floren 4y ago
I was attempting sarcasm, because as you say, Obama loved that surveillance shit.

r3trohack3r 4y ago

> It's even harder to say, look, we've got to accept that some amount of child exploitation is going to happen and people are going to use digital tools to spread it. But at some point, I think you do have to defend the principle that we have to tolerate a certain amount of even the very worst things if we want to have meaningful civil liberties. This is not how I’d articulate it. We tolerate some terrible things because trying to stop them would be even worse. There are really bad people out there. Unfortunately those bad people can also run for office and/or get hired on to 3 letter agencies. A pedophile with a camera is less dangerous than a senator without the 4th amendment. A racist on social media is less dangerous than a president without the first amendment. Fascism doesn’t happen because you elect a fascist president. The seeds of fascism had to be sown long before that. Fascism is the result of eroding protections designed to prevent a leader from over-reaching. The path to fascism is paved in good intentions.