4 ms·
What would be a better solution to prevent the spread of this material?
by gadders 3y ago
What would be a better solution to prevent the spread of this material?
- Canada 3y agoI don't know, what would be a better solution to catching criminals generally than installing police controlled cameras in everyone's houses? What is the difference between that and demanding to read all our correspondence?
- omginternets 3y agoAssuming there is no better solution, do you still think we should be compelled to share every written communication with a government agency?
- gadders 3y agoI do not, but Facebook and Instagram already police the content of DMs, don't they?
- omginternets 3y agoI can choose not to use Facebook and Instagram. The idea being discussed is to compel me to share private communications.
- Dylan16807 3y ago> What would be a better solution to prevent the spread of this material? If a solution is bad enough, it doesn't matter. Also there's a vast list of things law enforcement does right now, and most of those are better options.
- standardUser 3y agoImproved education at all levels, improved access to quality mental health services, a culture that encourages open and honest discussions about mental health, sex and seuxality.
- SenAnder 3y agoClassic police work? Social engineering, infiltrators, targeted surveillance, teachers/doctors/social services reporting to the police signs of child abuse (that's what we're actually trying to prevent, not jpegs)? You are implying that the current approach isn't a "solution" because it doesn't catch everything. Plenty of people are convicted of CSAM possession/distribution/production without mandatory government scanning of all communication. Unless your tolerance for CSAM/murder/rape is literally zero, in which case we will all live in solitary prisons because that is the only way "solve" this "perfectly". You can keep asking "what is a better solution", for any crime, until we have literally no rights left.
- omginternets 3y agoNot that I disagree with you, but you're allowing the narrative to shift away from "government involvement in private correspondence is a hallmark of totalitarianism" and instead go towards "government involvement in private correspondence may be the most effective way to combat CSAM". IMO, the correct answer to this question is "do you think it's appropriate to spy on everyone to fight crime?"
- SenAnder 3y agoThey already spy on everyone. Private companies that gather information, such as through embedded ads, will sell it to anyone, cell phone towers triangulate your location, gather call metadata, license plate readers track where you drive, facial recognition on the off chance you're not in your car and without your cell phone, etc etc.. This is about taking away your right to even try to evade even more intrusive spying, despite how much better their ability to spy even without such laws has gotten (instead they publicly claim there's a "going dark" problem).
- omginternets 3y agoYes, we're on the same page :)
- 3y ago
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- mindslight 3y agoYou could stop downloading it, for starters. Or if you want to claim that you don't, perhaps you should try proving a negative and convince us of your innocence - before you support a standard of everyone being forced to do so.
- johngladtj 3y agoWhy should it be censored?