General > General Technical Chat

EU mandantory chat control

<< < (21/32) > >>

Nominal Animal:
See Dunbar, R. I. M, and Sosis, R. Optimising human community sizes, Evol Hum Behav. 2018 Jan; 39(1): 106–111. (doi: 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2017.11.001).
For some reason, societies with 50, 150, and 500 are disproportionately more common than other sizes, in historical small scale agricultural societies.

In more general terms, humans rarely have isolated societies, and instead tend to "layer" according to the type/depth/frequency of interaction.  You have something like a household, something like a village, something like a county (with up to about 2000 humans, about the maximum where everyone can "know" everyone else), and something like a "nation" or "state" (a much more abstract definition).  Laws and mores and culture is similarly layered.

Something simple like whether alcohol or a specific recreational drug is allowed or not, can be governed at any level.  The more abstract or widely affecting human-human interactions a matter is, the wider the reach, and therefore the "higher" up the level such stuff is typically decided.  A "nation" typically has common base laws, but local customs can vary slightly.

I don't have good references for it right now, but I seem to recall that in societies with up to 2000 members or so, "laws" emerge from the social pressure, without anyone really having to set them.  Because of this, I do believe any society with up to 2000 members or socan set their own laws and politics just by interacting with each other, but anything larger, and you need institutions.  Thus, the ten million limit seems quite high to me, unless "layering" is assumed.

Humans haven't yet arrived at any real agreement on global basic laws, either.  For example, in Western societies, 'ownership' and 'possession' are completely separate concepts (and the difference is important for the functioning of Western societies), but there are human societies (in developing countries) where the two are interchangeable in many respects.  (It is an interesting topic in and of itself, but because such societies exist in developing countries, such discussion is considered "hate speech" against members of those "protected groups".)

bd139:

--- Quote from: Simon on May 16, 2022, 06:11:13 pm ---
--- Quote from: bd139 on May 16, 2022, 07:43:04 am ---
--- Quote from: Simon on May 15, 2022, 09:17:08 pm ---Freedoms of expression stuff usually relates to public speach, what you say to your mates no one could give a toss. Now they may want to stop terrorists etc, fine, but if they turn up a text you sent to a mate saying you hate a particular minority does that class as hate speech? nope or at least I suspect legally they will struggle and erm, resources? never mind the resources to detect, now that they have discovered that 1 in 2 people have some unhealthy views that if said to the offendable party or otherwise in public would get them in the nick but in a private chat is not the same, how do they prosecute half the population?

I don't even see the need for all of this end to end encryption no one can ever break. It's a need created by the mere fact that it was provided. For me it's more of a pain, I change phone, well that's all my whatsapp messages gone! yep, oh you want to use whatsapp on your PC, sorry can't see that last message you just sent or received on your phone, it's gone mad and signal is even worse. Since when did we have a problem that needed such unbreakable encryption - we never did. Communications are already sunt encrpted, but they it seems to work now is that it's impossible for even the user to retain their stuff never mind the go,vernment.

My sister insists, or rather her husband does on using signal, so I get all the photos and videos of my niece on signal - it's a pain in the arse trying to get that stuff out of signal thanks to the encryption paranoia! because family chats and photos/videos need high end encryption - for what? oh and needless to say, he who decided to use signal has never donated a penny to them! what a fucked up society we live in, there is one thing the conspiracy theorists have right, one word - sheeple! we care so much for our privacy while we literally give it all away to facebook who all these idiots who refuse to use whatsapp still use.

I'm sick of hearing about privacy and snooping from people who broadcast their lives 24/7!

--- End quote ---

Just a point on privacy and messaging.

Anything that you tell anyone else is not private any more. At no point can you trust the other party not to distribute it or ensure that their endpoint is secure. The biggest attack vector to privacy is loose mouths. Ergo private messaging is a misnomer.

Signal / Telegram etc are pointless if you want absolute privacy. Don’t say stuff.

--- End quote ---

Yes exactly, but oh no, your privacy is threatened, use our app! Everything is end to end encrypted, as far as I am aware you can't use an app on a phone that is not which is why the VPN's these youtubers shill are virtually scams. But in the name of you buying into these services they can be bloody hard work to use because the fact that phones encrypt data stored and use encrypted communications was not enough.

But then maybe we do need all this scrutiny, our prime minister was investigated for things the proof or disproof of which lay on a phone he no longer used so the whatsapp messages were lost, so yes we obviously do need this stuff to monitor our corrupt politicians :)

--- End quote ---

Unless your phone was compromised by NSO Pegasus then ALL your communications are open to whoever bought it.

https://www.techtarget.com/searchsecurity/news/252516052/Pegasus-spyware-discovered-UK-government-networks

Simon:

--- Quote from: bd139 on May 16, 2022, 07:02:17 pm ---

Unless your phone was compromised by NSO Pegasus then ALL your communications are open to whoever bought it.

https://www.techtarget.com/searchsecurity/news/252516052/Pegasus-spyware-discovered-UK-government-networks



--- End quote ---

If they are going to get you they are going to get you.

Simon:

--- Quote from: Nominal Animal on May 16, 2022, 07:01:25 pm ---See Dunbar, R. I. M, and Sosis, R. Optimising human community sizes, Evol Hum Behav. 2018 Jan; 39(1): 106–111. (doi: 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2017.11.001).
For some reason, societies with 50, 150, and 500 are disproportionately more common than other sizes, in historical small scale agricultural societies.

In more general terms, humans rarely have isolated societies, and instead tend to "layer" according to the type/depth/frequency of interaction.  You have something like a household, something like a village, something like a county (with up to about 2000 humans, about the maximum where everyone can "know" everyone else), and something like a "nation" or "state" (a much more abstract definition).  Laws and mores and culture is similarly layered.


--- End quote ---

when you can drive the length of a country in a day you need more universal laws than for every 2000 people or no one knows where they stand. And where are these boundaries set? Personally I would abolish the low level stuff that is a mere distraction. We all need a police force, why is this managed locally? where up until recently and probably still in the UK you could evade capture by being in the next county as it took a lot of paperwork for one force to tell another something, in the 21st century where you can drive a county in an hour this is not even stupid, it's worse.

TimFox:
There has been a lot of work on the theory of market-center organization.
https://transportgeography.org/contents/chapter2/transport-and-spatial-organization/central-places-theory-urban-system/
Geographically, every small town in the US has a grocery store, but for specialized medical care one goes to a larger population center.
These relationships form something like a lattice.
Many years ago, a paper in the Scientific American on this topic had two illustrations mapped:  one was a simple one in a flat country where there were no important physical barriers between towns.  The other was in a South American country where the indigenous and colonial populations didn't mix, but were both spread across a landscape.  There were two separate "lattices" of market centers.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

There was an error while thanking
Thanking...
Go to full version
Powered by SMFPacks Advanced Attachments Uploader Mod