4 ms·
The only way out of this mess is with new laws and that will require new lawmakers. Any other solution - relying on the kindness of corporations, toiling away w
by standardUser 3y ago
The only way out of this mess is with new laws and that will require new lawmakers. Any other solution - relying on the kindness of corporations, toiling away with obscure technologies, gong 'off the grid' - are all foolish or unrealistic for 99% or so of people and shouldn't even be considered.
The most promising starting point is probably at the state level.
- cronix 3y agoI'm not sure new laws will matter much considering they've been breaking the existing laws through creative interpretation.
- crawfordcomeaux 3y agoThis legal structure of governance already kills so many people unintentionally, it's unethical to keep trying to reform it when it was designed from flawed principles. Time for a full redesign.
- standardUser 3y agoAnd if they shoot you dead first, you're cool with that? For the cause?
- crawfordcomeaux 3y agoI mean, I'm already a target for various things/reason. That's why I'm an advocate for viral movements so we hit a point where the movement's so large, we skip over the part of the process where killing us would be an effective means of stopping the movement. But yeah, I'm not going to let threat of death keep me from plowing forward. Embracing death is part of death practice. I'm still going to move forward playfully and through harm reduction.
- standardUser 3y agoPersonally, I think we have seen too much change within our system in my lifetime for me to think hundreds of thousands or millions of people should die in the off chance that we can change it to something remarkably better.
- crawfordcomeaux 3y agoRight there with you. Not trying for violent revolution. Just something more creative than what we've seen in the past.
- standardUser 3y agoJust because laws don't matter 100% of the time does not mean they don't matter. And the solution to better enforcement of laws is the same as the solution to passing better laws: elect better lawmakers.
- mark_l_watson 3y agoThe Libertarian party might fit our needs for privacy, but very few people belong to the party. As a liberal, I started listening to the Ron Paul (Libertarian, retired US Senator) podcast at least once a week. Maybe because I am older, but what he says mostly makes sense to me. (Now I expect to get in trouble here because I mentioned a third party, that is fine with me.)
- timeon 3y agoProblem is that US has two party system.
- verisimi 3y agoYou want the state to write laws to prevent it spying on its citizens?
- standardUser 3y agoI want legislators to pass laws that prevent spying by the executive branch. I don't care who writes them.
- verisimi 3y agoBut, who do you think sanctions this stuff in the first place? I think it's an insane expectation to think that government would sanction itself, when it is also requesting and enabling the ability to spy on citizens! I think you've read the government's self promotional material, and believe it - that it's trying to do the best for its citizens, keep people safe, etc as opposed to seeing it for what it is, which is a mafia exploration racket that keeps it's major beneficiaries out of public view.
- standardUser 3y agoThere are countless examples of laws being passed that go against the presumed interest of the people passing them.
- flossposse 3y agoA bigger problem, IMO, is that companies are allowed to hold and exploit this data in the first place, with no obligations to act in their customer's interests. Google and Apple arguably govern our lives just as much as the actual government, but with fewer mechanisms for representation, transparency, or accountability.