General > General Technical Chat
EU mandantory chat control
<< < (16/32) > >>
Simon:
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!
Zero999:

--- 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?

--- End quote ---
The Scottish government would disagree with you on that.


--- Quote ---From its troubled beginnings, the Hate Crime Bill has been altered significantly. Changes were made during cross-party efforts in what some MSPs described as "Holyrood at its best".

Yet even with that scrutiny, concerns remain. Offences can now be committed even in private, an abandonment of an earlier "dwelling defence" in race hate law.

Even with the Scottish government's insistence that the bar for prosecution is high, there are those who still believe this is an example of interference in private and family life. Why should any government, they ask, decide what can and can't be said in the privacy of one's home?
--- End quote ---
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-56364821

The bar for what constitutes hate speech is very low. Hampshire police spent a long time trying to track down someone for putting up posters saying "It's okay to be white.". I believe this is because the same phrase has been used by white supremacists,  but that shouldn't make the phrase in itself hate speech, as anyone who hasn't been indoctrinated with critical race theory, would agree with it. Either way they wouldn't bother if it said "It's okay to be black/Asian/Muslim etc." and they should arguably spend their time tracking down real criminals.
SiliconWizard:
The ECHR you linked to has an article about freedom of expression. The paragraph describing the exceptions is longer than the one describing the guaranteed freedom itself, and of course gives all powers to governments for passing laws to restrict it as much as is convenient.

To be compared with the original Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) which guaranteed freedom of expression without any restriction.
bd139:

--- 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.
tom66:

--- Quote from: bd139 on May 15, 2022, 06:52:36 pm ---The thing is it’s difficult for 50 people to actually do any damage.

My point was to throw an extreme in and see what mid ground comes out as sensible.

--- End quote ---

Yes and it's also impossible for 50 people to organise anything sensible, so we'd not have roads outside of our small settlements, healthcare, scientific advances, etc.

You can disagree with the existence of large bureaucratic organisations like the EU without making statements like this which fail simple tests.  Overall I think the EU is more positive than it is negative.
Navigation
Message Index
Next page
Previous page
There was an error while thanking
Thanking...

Go to full version
Powered by SMFPacks Advanced Attachments Uploader Mod