536
submitted 2 years ago by boem@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] fubo@lemmy.world 180 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Taking away privacy makes it easier for children to be abused.

Remember, the most likely abusers of children are not strangers off the Internet; they're people who have authority over those children: parents, church leaders, teachers, coaches, police, etc.

Private online communication makes it easier for abused children to get help.

In other words, these laws are not "fighting pedophilia". They are enabling child abuse.

[-] masquenox@lemmy.ml 26 points 2 years ago

In other words, these laws are not “fighting pedophilia”. They are enabling child abuse.

So no different than all these laws that (supposedly) "stop sex trafficking" which only exist to clamp down on sex work while... drumroll... making absolutely no dent in actual sex trafficking?

Yeah... that tracks.

[-] fubo@lemmy.world 23 points 2 years ago

Just consider: If sex work were legal and not stigmatized, there wouldn't be incels, which would rob the far-right of some of its most vigorous supporters.

[-] DancingIsForbidden@lemmy.world 12 points 2 years ago

I always thought reddit awards were stupid but this post makes we wish lemmy had a way to super upvote.

[-] deafboy@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago

A companion chooses her own clients, that's guild law. But physical appearance doesn't matter so terribly, you look for a compatibility of spirit.

— Inara Serra

[-] brewbellyblueberry@sopuli.xyz 20 points 2 years ago

On top of all that, I wonder how much the types of backports they're rooting for would be used to acquire the kind of material pedophiles are after. I mean kids will be kids either way and be stupid and the people that are after kiddie porn seem more likely the type of people to know their way around and stay hidden, because they're literally predators. These backports will be abused by both "the legitimate" side and criminals, so wouldn't having a "special key" to unlock your backdoor put your children in more danger, especially when you're sleeping sound thinking you're safe and therefore not worried about someone, "breaking in". (Is it still breaking in if they have a fucking key?)

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Dyskolos@lemmy.zip 6 points 2 years ago

I don't really see your point. There would still be private communication, it would just not be private in the eyes of the law anymore. Wouldn't make it easier for abusers to abuse.

Or did I just miss something?

[-] fubo@lemmy.world 34 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)
  1. Backdoors in consumer software cannot in fact be restricted to "legitimate" use. All it takes is one "bad apple" to leak the keys -- say, a radicalized police officer leaking them to a fascist group for use in harassing political opponents -- and those keys show up on the darknet and are directly available to abusers. This is a much larger threat than (e.g.) traditional landline telephone wiretapping.
  2. If secure communication systems are made illegal, the organizations that build those systems (e.g. Signal) will shut down so as not to be prosecuted for "enabling child abuse". This deprives their current users, including children, of the secure communication systems they are already using today.
  3. Sadly, law enforcement officers abuse their power quite often. They also have a higher rate of domestic abuse than the general population. Giving them power to spy on children's communication is directly enabling abusers.
load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Gakomi@lemmy.world 165 points 2 years ago

Not gonna lie the fighting pedophilia seems more of an excuse in order to read our messages!

[-] A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world 31 points 2 years ago

"For the children!" legislation has never been for the children, and always has been pushing authoritarian laws that take away peoples power.

and they feel safe doing it, because they have the in built system of shutting down criticism and complaint with "Oh, so you DON'T want to protect the childrens? You DON'T want to stop them being sexually exploited?!"

[-] maggio@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 2 years ago

That's exactly what a criminal would say! /s

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Treczoks@lemmy.world 91 points 2 years ago

Pedophiles would be terminally stupid if they used common, commercial chat systems and social media. Those who survive have probably their own forums completely disconnected from commercial prying eyes.

So in the end they would only catch a handful of very stupid amateurs while trampling on the rights to privacy and confidentiality of all citizens.

[-] FartsWithAnAccent@lemmy.world 79 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

It was never about fighting pedophilia lol, it's about power.

[-] Lenny@lemmy.zip 11 points 2 years ago

And control, can’t forget that.

[-] Dyskolos@lemmy.zip 69 points 2 years ago

For fighting pedos (or abusers in general) it would be way more helpful to fight it at the root, not the leafs.

But it's just a marketing-phrase to kill privacy, not fight abuse....

[-] postmateDumbass@lemmy.world 43 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

So eliminate children?

Very Huxlarian.

[-] DarkenLM@kbin.social 15 points 2 years ago
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] eya@lemmy.dbzer0.com 60 points 2 years ago

classic "protecting the children" to do something terrible excuse

[-] atrielienz@lemmy.world 46 points 2 years ago

Does anybody but me remember top sites? Back in the day bootleggers would distribute and share ripped movies and albums on top sites for bootleggers to download and copy to disc or tape. Like. They didn't use regular chats except to vet new people. They literally had their own chat networks. The same applies here. Like. Why do they think this will do anything much to make a dent in CP? We all know it won't and it's a poorly concealed attempt at destroying privacy laws.

[-] DigitalFrank@lemmy.world 38 points 2 years ago

You want to fight pedophilia, cut of the trafficking network at the head.

Release the Epstein client list.

They won't, this is how you know it's not about pedophilia, it's about further invasion of privacy and more monitoring of the peasants.

[-] TheDarksteel94@sopuli.xyz 4 points 2 years ago

I think they're just trying to pick the battles they can potentially win

[-] Duamerthrax@lemmy.world 9 points 2 years ago

I think they're just trying to get reelected by eliciting primal emotions.

They could go after the Epstein people, but that would upset the (terrible)status quo.

[-] catalog3115@lemmy.world 35 points 2 years ago

To put pressure on the countries and persuade them to vote 'yes', the European Commission placed these ads only in countries that did not want to vote for the law: Sweden, Belgium, Finland, Slovenia, Portugal, the Czech Republic and the Netherlands Ads Ads Pic

[-] magnetosphere@kbin.social 34 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

So, a better title might be “Fighting privacy under the guise of fighting pedophelia: The EU rule that could break the internet”

[-] clearedtoland@lemmy.world 21 points 2 years ago

The unfortunate brilliance of it is that there are master strategists and tacticians that understand how to pass thinly-veiled invasive legislation under some undeniably noble premise.

NYC started with speed cameras and red light cameras only near schools to “protect children.” Who wouldn’t support that? Every single government employee knew this was a long term play: capture metrics showing how much these roadways have improved - then use that to support expansion of the system elsewhere. The same with NYPD cameras and surveillance stations.

Start with something small and digestible to the public, then use it to substantiate the unpalatable.

[-] PlexSheep@feddit.de 5 points 2 years ago

Red light and speed cams everywhere just makes sense for traffic.

[-] fubo@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

It really depends on who's in charge of them. In many US cities, they were operated corruptly by agencies who dialed-down the yellow-light time to increase fines and raise revenue.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] troyunrau@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 years ago

capture metrics showing how much these roadways have improved - then use that to support expansion of the system elsewhere

As traffic is usually the most dangerous thing any of us interact with on a regular basis, I propose that this result is actually a good thing.

[-] mojo@lemm.ee 17 points 2 years ago

It's always "think of the children!" as the go to fascist propaganda

[-] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 11 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

The vast majority of politicians apparently refuse to understand - despite it being explained ad nauseum in a multitude of ways - that truly robust encryption with no “master key” or “back door” that the “good guys” can use is completely integral to and absolutely required for the modern internet to work at all.

[-] deczzz@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

And it will probably happen. No one in power gives a fuck about logic and reason. It's all about sending a signal. People don't care about privacy but they don't like pedos!

11 years ago, I attended a talk by Gottfrid Svartholm in Berlin. He told us that we have lost the internet. Pretty good foresight eh?

[-] Oha@lemmy.ohaa.xyz 9 points 2 years ago

In case someone wants to mail the EU: https://stopchatcontrol.eu/

[-] Petter1@lemm.ee 9 points 2 years ago

What are they gonna do about my Matrix server 🤔

[-] smileyhead@discuss.tchncs.de 10 points 2 years ago

Matrix server could become illegal in such laws.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] Buffaloaf@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago

But I thought Kim Kardashian already broke the internet

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 18 Oct 2023
536 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

73534 readers
2389 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS