3 ms·
Content of sites should be 1000% irrelevant wrt a state or municipality blocking it. It's like phone numbers- they don't get a say in what gets transmitted, per
by observationist 11mo ago
Content of sites should be 1000% irrelevant wrt a state or municipality blocking it. It's like phone numbers- they don't get a say in what gets transmitted, period, full stop, and any access of the content requires a well worn and battle tested legal process. This sort of arbitrary, whiny, "we dont like it so we're going to pretend things like freedom of communication and association don't exist" and other perspectives don't survive the technical reality, let alone the principled legal framework.
It's 100% legal for me to read off the zeroes and ones of a file I own that exists on my computer over the phone talking to anyone I want. Even if it's horribly offensive. Even if it's hateful, or makes people feel bad. I can even mock the deceased mothers of congress people, and there's nothing they can (or should) do about it.
Internet regulation should begin and end there. If you're wiretapping, getting a warrant, etc, then there has to be justification and law in support of your actions, otherwise, the communication should not even exist as a concept in your mind, at the governmental level. They should consider any and all network traffic to be completely meaningless, illusory babble from which no conclusions can be drawn, absent underlying due process.
Somehow we've gotten to a state where it's now being debated as to not only who you are allowed to connect to, but under what conditions, and what may be communicated once the network is connected. That sort of default surveillance and censorship is 100% never used for the good of a society, historically 100% of the time used to the detriment of society, and it's only in those cases where substantial protections of due process exist and are robustly followed where any sort of surveillance and censorship actually does any good.
These actions are power grabs. Any attempts to extend and expand state surveillance and control over communications should be vehemently condemned, up to and including running the authors out of any community they're in if they don't drop it.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 11mo ago[flagged]
- fragmede 11mo agoOr worse yet, a Disney movie?
- black6 11mo agoThose are illegal, separate from the medium of conveyance.
- observationist 11mo agoThe act of communication isn't itself a crime. See: bitcoin blockchain. There are numerous reports on various data on the blockchain that are very illegal, but now cryptographically permanent, unless they fork it and eliminate the corruption. IIRC, the criminals who did that got caught. If it were known you were trafficking in that kind of stuff, then hell yes, get that due process in motion. It doesn't matter if they're babbling binary, sending pigeons, or using smoke signals at that point - the underlying crime is the CSAM possession, distribution, etc, and should be pursued relentlessly. "Ahhh, but what if someone does a horrible thing involving crimes against children!" is not valid justification for throwing out civil liberties and basic right to privacy, freedom of communication, association, freedom of the press, and so forth. You don't need to discard the latter in service of prosecuting and preventing the former. With regards to the terrorist attack plans, is it satire? Is it research for a Seal Team 6 show or book? Are you deeply considering how to beef up your own security, or maybe thinking about what you think of national security policies? Maybe you're planning an epic podcast series that explores historic attacks, and the tactics and strategies used in execution and prevention of attacks. Is it just vengeful fantasizing? Again, if there's cause, we have due process for that. You don't throw out basic fundamental civil liberties because scary words. And don't even get me started on copyright. That system needs to be nuked from orbit. Razed, burned to the bedrock, salted over, and completely rebuilt from scratch, with no grandfathering, exceptions, or acknowledgement of previous rights, with absolutely no consideration given to third party rights transfers, extending rights periods, or any of the godawful stupid games lawyers play these days to screw everyone out of their money without providing any concurrent value to the system whatsoever. Freedom is terrifying. Get used to it, then build policy. Maximize the agency and liberty of good faith individuals, and incentivize people to be the best they can be. Ruthlessly protect liberty and principles of freedom against any and all threats, regardless of how politically convenient violations and suppression of rights might be in the moment. If you treat every individual in a society like an incompetent moron without the capacity to decide how they should live, then you incentivize sociopaths and bad faith actors and morons to positions of power where they will rapidly spin the society out into destructive cycles. Bad people exist. Most people aren't bad. Build a world where it's more beneficial for everyone to act good, where you protect the rights of every individual from abuse and exploitation, and put the responsibility for their lives onto the individuals living it. Make extreme invasion of privacy an exceptional, unusual thing that requires extreme justification. Where we are at now is abominable.