• @fubo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    141
    edit-2
    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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      192 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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        152 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.

    • @brewbellyblueberry@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      142 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?)

  • @Gakomi@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    1272 years ago

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

    • @A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      222 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?!”

      • @Gakomi@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        12 years ago

        Wrong cause I have no problem if anyone see my mesajes it just bothers me that they can spy on you. Frankly if someone sees my messages they will either laugh their ass off of be traumatize by my memes. They will probably consider me a misogin, racist and whatever due to my sens of humor and I will probably get called by suicide prevention services due to my depression!

  • @Treczoks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    642 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.

  • @atrielienz@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    362 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.

  • @Jackthelad@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    302 years ago

    Someone break out that Edward Snowden quote about having “nothing to hide”.

    Because those people are the reason these dumb things are proposed.

  • magnetosphere
    link
    fedilink
    29
    edit-2
    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”

  • @DigitalFrank@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    262 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.

      • @Duamerthrax@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        42 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
    link
    fedilink
    English
    252 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

  • @JewGoblin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    252 years ago

    lol the same politicians let grooming gangs get away with exploiting young girls, they could care less about Pedos and care more about the power they yield, in other words they’re full of shit

  • @clearedtoland@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    192 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.

      • @fubo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        22 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.

        • @PlexSheep@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          12 years ago

          Okay that sucks. Still, traffic controls help make traffic more safe, and more stable.

          And If more people are fined for breaking traffic laws, maybe they will learn it some time or just stop driving so much.

    • Troy
      link
      fedilink
      English
      22 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.

  • @gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    9
    edit-2
    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.