4 ms·

I flat do not trust that the motivations for the legislation are what the government says. The UK has a history of covering up child abuse by establishment fig

I flat do not trust that the motivations for the legislation are what the government says. The UK has a history of covering up child abuse by establishment figures, not least Prince Andrew. They are not actually concerned with preventing child abuse. Successive UK governments have tried to remove or weaken encryption over the years since the 90's. There have been a succession of excuses, but mostly "think of the children". The various MI* agencies have said publicly that they cannot carry out their duties (that of spying on UK citizens) while E2E encryption is available. IF they had the courage of their convictions they would just lay out their case for a society with no privacy, have the argument, and accept the conclusion. But I realise this is politically naive.

Quarrelsome 2y ago
> The UK has a history of covering up child abuse by establishment figures, not least Prince Andrew. Can we please reference Jimmy Saville instead? Jimmy Saville is an entirely deplorable example of what it is that you're getting at and he got away with blatant and horrific acts until he died. Conversely Prince Andrew is a crap example because what he is accused of (sex with a 17 year old in London in 2001) is actually entirely legal in the UK (age of consent is 16). So to hold him up as a prime example of a problem is just an Americanism.
- latentsea 2y ago
  > Can we please reference Jimmy Saville instead? Jimmy Saville is an entirely deplorable example of what it is that you're getting at and he got away with blatant and horrific acts until he died. His case comes up on Thursday.
- InkBloomfield 2y ago
  > So to hold him up as a prime example of a problem is just an Americanism. These girls were trafficked and groomed by Epstein and Maxwell. Even if the woman was older it would still be deeply immoral as these girls/women were trafficked.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
Lanolderen 2y ago
With time privacy is getting more and more difficult to the point where I'm not sure you can/will have real privacy living life normally so releasing the dirty laundry of everyone will even the playing field to where everyone's at least a bit of a freak but we hopefully just accept it since we're also not who we are on Linkedin. While true privacy is probably optimal I've been quite curious about the idea of a "no privacy society" recently and the more I think about it the less of a terrible idea it seems if it keeps getting more and more difficult to maintain privacy for normal people and especially in the realm of politics. If you know everything about the people high up they can't really be blackmailed and I'm not really sure anyone would care that big shot X enjoys gambling or some kinky sex once in a while. tl;dr: If privacy is/gets impossible to maintain for normal people it might be worth just displaying everyone's dirty laundry so no one can pretend they're saints from their elaborate privacy castle. No idea how you'd go about implementing it realistically. It's mostly a shower thought. Does anyone know any good discussions in that direction?
- vv_ 2y ago
  > If you know everything about the people high up This is a law for the peasantry not the nobility. Due to international treaties (e.g. Five Eyes) it'll allow federal agencies in the United States to spy on US citizens using the UK as proxy. The greatest irony is that Western societies are slowly becoming the dystopia they once accused China of being and evidently nobody cares.
  - Lanolderen 2y ago
    Yeah. That's the implementation issue. It'd need to go top->down somehow. And I wouldn't say nobody cares. It's just that a lot of what's happening is quite technical for normal people and in many countries you can't even really do much about it. At this point you're getting bent over by your government, other peoples governments, awkward techbros with visions, weirdos with business plans, etc..
    - vv_ 2y ago
      > It's just that a lot of what's happening is quite technical for normal people What's the point of news media if not to explain these issues to the general public in a way they can understand? If we lived in a free and open society that values personal privacy and opposes government overreach, this would be prime-time news, plastered across the front pages of every newspaper. I don't see a practical difference between what's happening here and what's happening in China, except that the Western world is considerably more nuanced in how it controls the (global) narrative. We've been living in an Orwellian nightmare for a long time.
sph 2y ago
Child abuse is an excuse. It is a red herring. The thing about weaponising child abuse to destroy democracy and privacy, is that no one can openly protest against it, because who the hell is against protecting children from abuse? Especially in Britain, where the spectre of child abuse happening basically in plain sight, is still fresh in anyone's mind (Savile & co.) Child abuse is the trojan horse. Any resistance and fight for privacy has been on a ticking clock since legislators discovered they have the ultimate weapon to pass any form of anti-democratic regulation. Slap "it's for the children!" on top of it, and the masses will applaud and cheer for more spying and more profiling by the government.
- d0gsg0w00f 2y ago
  So what _are_ they supposed to do about the children? The alternative (doing nothing) is not good. Or do you think that government should shrink their responsibilities and everyone should watch out for their own kids?
  - Ekaros 2y ago
    Couldn't we ask same thing about financial fraud. That is should government have AI to scan every single message send by everyone to see if they are responding to some scam? Maybe direct those matching certain criteria automatically to teams of people who are allowed to read through that correspondence? That too would be doing something. And maybe even net benefit for many individuals.
    - d0gsg0w00f 2y ago
      But that's expanding government's role even further to cover even more forms of abuse. Are you saying "if they're going to scan for CP they might as well scan for fraud too"?
      - Ekaros 2y ago
        No I am asking wouldn't that be as good reason. Or even protect lot more people.
thefz 2y ago
Child abuse being used here is just to appeal to emotions of the public. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_of_the_Infocalypse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_of_the_Infocalyp...
- InkBloomfield 2y ago
  Even if it isn't child abuse, they will put up someone abhorrent that you have to defend the rights for, these are usually boogiemen like Islamic Extremists, Neo-nazis, Misogynists etc.
raxxorraxor 2y ago
> They are not actually concerned with preventing child abuse. Wasn't Starmer even part of the political forces trying to cover abuses up? To not "rock the boat" or something like that? You don't need to marry Musk, but I think he was on point here. Their surveillance ambitions are clear as well, because negative press is of course unfortunate.
GJim 2y ago
> child abuse by establishment figures, not least Prince Andrew Citation needed. (That's quite a serious allegation you are making).
- InkBloomfield 2y ago
  There is plenty of information available about Prince Andrew's relationship with Jeffrey Epstein and even a photo of Prince Andrew with his arm around the young girl in question. Even the Royal Family have tacitly admitted this by essentially socially ostracising e.g. removing him from official events.
  - GJim 2y ago
    Having a friend turn out to be (very) dodgy isn't evidence you are a child abuser. Not to mention the lass the accusations surround was 17 and therefore not a child. Far too much internet hysteria and not enough facts.
    - InkBloomfield 2y ago
      It isn't just a "dodgy" friend, Epstein and Maxwell ran a sex trafficking ring. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Andrew_%26_the_Epstein_Scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Andrew_%26_the_Epstein_... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Andrew,_Duke_of_York#Allegations_of_sexual_abuse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Andrew,_Duke_of_York#Al... The Prince himself has lost his military and HRH titles. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59987935 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59987935 It is quite easy to find details and news reports about the allegations as well as the all the testimony. I think from what is there it is very likely he is guilty and the fact that he been stripped of his titles is a tacit acknowledgement of it by the Royals. > Not to mention the lass the accusations surround was 17 and therefore not a child. 1) In much of the US it is a considered a Minor. Most people in the UK do not consider you an adult until 18 and legally you aren't really (you cannot drink until 18, or drive until 17). So you are still considered a child in many ways. 2) The girl was also sex trafficked (like many others) by Epstein and Maxwell. This isn't him paying to sleep with a prostitute (I wouldn't care if that was the case). 3) Prince Andrew was 40 at the time. It is extremely frowned upon for a 40 year old man to sleep with a 17 year old in the UK. I know my family would highly disapprove of me if I slept with a a 17 year old girl (I am in my early 40s). 4) The fact you don't seem bothered about a 40 year old man sleeping with a 17 year old. Quite frankly says a lot about you. > Far too much internet hysteria and not enough facts. You are being disingenuous or ignorant if you think it is just hysteria.

Quarrelsome 2y ago

> The UK has a history of covering up child abuse by establishment figures, not least Prince Andrew. Can we please reference Jimmy Saville instead? Jimmy Saville is an entirely deplorable example of what it is that you're getting at and he got away with blatant and horrific acts until he died. Conversely Prince Andrew is a crap example because what he is accused of (sex with a 17 year old in London in 2001) is actually entirely legal in the UK (age of consent is 16). So to hold him up as a prime example of a problem is just an Americanism.

latentsea 2y ago
> Can we please reference Jimmy Saville instead? Jimmy Saville is an entirely deplorable example of what it is that you're getting at and he got away with blatant and horrific acts until he died. His case comes up on Thursday.
InkBloomfield 2y ago
> So to hold him up as a prime example of a problem is just an Americanism. These girls were trafficked and groomed by Epstein and Maxwell. Even if the woman was older it would still be deeply immoral as these girls/women were trafficked.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

Lanolderen 2y ago

With time privacy is getting more and more difficult to the point where I'm not sure you can/will have real privacy living life normally so releasing the dirty laundry of everyone will even the playing field to where everyone's at least a bit of a freak but we hopefully just accept it since we're also not who we are on Linkedin. While true privacy is probably optimal I've been quite curious about the idea of a "no privacy society" recently and the more I think about it the less of a terrible idea it seems if it keeps getting more and more difficult to maintain privacy for normal people and especially in the realm of politics. If you know everything about the people high up they can't really be blackmailed and I'm not really sure anyone would care that big shot X enjoys gambling or some kinky sex once in a while. tl;dr: If privacy is/gets impossible to maintain for normal people it might be worth just displaying everyone's dirty laundry so no one can pretend they're saints from their elaborate privacy castle. No idea how you'd go about implementing it realistically. It's mostly a shower thought. Does anyone know any good discussions in that direction?

vv_ 2y ago
> If you know everything about the people high up This is a law for the peasantry not the nobility. Due to international treaties (e.g. Five Eyes) it'll allow federal agencies in the United States to spy on US citizens using the UK as proxy. The greatest irony is that Western societies are slowly becoming the dystopia they once accused China of being and evidently nobody cares.
- Lanolderen 2y ago
  Yeah. That's the implementation issue. It'd need to go top->down somehow. And I wouldn't say nobody cares. It's just that a lot of what's happening is quite technical for normal people and in many countries you can't even really do much about it. At this point you're getting bent over by your government, other peoples governments, awkward techbros with visions, weirdos with business plans, etc..
  - vv_ 2y ago
    > It's just that a lot of what's happening is quite technical for normal people What's the point of news media if not to explain these issues to the general public in a way they can understand? If we lived in a free and open society that values personal privacy and opposes government overreach, this would be prime-time news, plastered across the front pages of every newspaper. I don't see a practical difference between what's happening here and what's happening in China, except that the Western world is considerably more nuanced in how it controls the (global) narrative. We've been living in an Orwellian nightmare for a long time.

sph 2y ago

Child abuse is an excuse. It is a red herring. The thing about weaponising child abuse to destroy democracy and privacy, is that no one can openly protest against it, because who the hell is against protecting children from abuse? Especially in Britain, where the spectre of child abuse happening basically in plain sight, is still fresh in anyone's mind (Savile & co.) Child abuse is the trojan horse. Any resistance and fight for privacy has been on a ticking clock since legislators discovered they have the ultimate weapon to pass any form of anti-democratic regulation. Slap "it's for the children!" on top of it, and the masses will applaud and cheer for more spying and more profiling by the government.

d0gsg0w00f 2y ago
So what _are_ they supposed to do about the children? The alternative (doing nothing) is not good. Or do you think that government should shrink their responsibilities and everyone should watch out for their own kids?
- Ekaros 2y ago
  Couldn't we ask same thing about financial fraud. That is should government have AI to scan every single message send by everyone to see if they are responding to some scam? Maybe direct those matching certain criteria automatically to teams of people who are allowed to read through that correspondence? That too would be doing something. And maybe even net benefit for many individuals.
  - d0gsg0w00f 2y ago
    But that's expanding government's role even further to cover even more forms of abuse. Are you saying "if they're going to scan for CP they might as well scan for fraud too"?
    - Ekaros 2y ago
      No I am asking wouldn't that be as good reason. Or even protect lot more people.

thefz 2y ago

Child abuse being used here is just to appeal to emotions of the public. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_of_the_Infocalypse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_of_the_Infocalyp...

InkBloomfield 2y ago
Even if it isn't child abuse, they will put up someone abhorrent that you have to defend the rights for, these are usually boogiemen like Islamic Extremists, Neo-nazis, Misogynists etc.

raxxorraxor 2y ago

> They are not actually concerned with preventing child abuse. Wasn't Starmer even part of the political forces trying to cover abuses up? To not "rock the boat" or something like that? You don't need to marry Musk, but I think he was on point here. Their surveillance ambitions are clear as well, because negative press is of course unfortunate.

GJim 2y ago

> child abuse by establishment figures, not least Prince Andrew Citation needed. (That's quite a serious allegation you are making).

InkBloomfield 2y ago
There is plenty of information available about Prince Andrew's relationship with Jeffrey Epstein and even a photo of Prince Andrew with his arm around the young girl in question. Even the Royal Family have tacitly admitted this by essentially socially ostracising e.g. removing him from official events.
- GJim 2y ago
  Having a friend turn out to be (very) dodgy isn't evidence you are a child abuser. Not to mention the lass the accusations surround was 17 and therefore not a child. Far too much internet hysteria and not enough facts.
  - InkBloomfield 2y ago
    It isn't just a "dodgy" friend, Epstein and Maxwell ran a sex trafficking ring. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Andrew_%26_the_Epstein_Scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Andrew_%26_the_Epstein_... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Andrew,_Duke_of_York#Allegations_of_sexual_abuse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Andrew,_Duke_of_York#Al... The Prince himself has lost his military and HRH titles. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59987935 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59987935 It is quite easy to find details and news reports about the allegations as well as the all the testimony. I think from what is there it is very likely he is guilty and the fact that he been stripped of his titles is a tacit acknowledgement of it by the Royals. > Not to mention the lass the accusations surround was 17 and therefore not a child. 1) In much of the US it is a considered a Minor. Most people in the UK do not consider you an adult until 18 and legally you aren't really (you cannot drink until 18, or drive until 17). So you are still considered a child in many ways. 2) The girl was also sex trafficked (like many others) by Epstein and Maxwell. This isn't him paying to sleep with a prostitute (I wouldn't care if that was the case). 3) Prince Andrew was 40 at the time. It is extremely frowned upon for a 40 year old man to sleep with a 17 year old in the UK. I know my family would highly disapprove of me if I slept with a a 17 year old girl (I am in my early 40s). 4) The fact you don't seem bothered about a 40 year old man sleeping with a 17 year old. Quite frankly says a lot about you. > Far too much internet hysteria and not enough facts. You are being disingenuous or ignorant if you think it is just hysteria.