527
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 30 Jun 2024
527 points (97.5% liked)
Privacy
31830 readers
90 users here now
A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.
Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.
In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.
Some Rules
- Posting a link to a website containing tracking isn't great, if contents of the website are behind a paywall maybe copy them into the post
- Don't promote proprietary software
- Try to keep things on topic
- If you have a question, please try searching for previous discussions, maybe it has already been answered
- Reposts are fine, but should have at least a couple of weeks in between so that the post can reach a new audience
- Be nice :)
Related communities
Chat rooms
-
[Matrix/Element]Dead
much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Sci fi or not, I kinda want them to get this one figured out ahead of time. It is kinda like assuming that a convicted felon could never be President. You wouldn't think that rule would need to exist because come on, how could a country possibly want to elect a convicted felon? Its a completely ridiculous notion that could absolutely never happen.
And Im telling you that is practically impossible to read your mind without committing other known already existing crimes. There is a rule already for it, it's called basic human rights.
When I say sci fi law, it's because it's fiction. This new law is against fiction. Your example is for something that's not fiction. Do you understand the difference? Do you think this politician forwarding this law understands it?
This is more akin to those old laws of banning all alcohol.
Want your privacy? Should force/convince your countries to ban cameras first*.
Is there a downside to having a law like this on the books?
Also, isn't banning cameras like a mind-blowingly bad idea? That would mean people couldn't do things like record police committing crimes, hell you wouldn't even be able to install a dash cam on your car.
You're wasting taxpayers money in fiction and pseudoscience. Every law needs at least one real example of something being done in bad faith or at least proven possible (even if the perpetrator fails at it).
The cameras was just a real example of invasion of privacy. By your logic maybe we need to make laws against time traveling ASAP, considering at any moment time travelers will be more relevant than ever.
You need to start making laws for things that really affects your life right now, instead of fictional maybes.
I mean, you said that camera thing like it was some kind of mic drop lol. I'm also not sure what you mean by "my logic", since I don't personally have much of an opinion on the law it's self, I was just curious why someone would be so vehemently against it. I'm not the original commenter that started this chain.
If it's a matter of wasted resources, I guess I see your point, but it's a bit of a reach. I don't know if it's as big of a waste as you're claiming when we have corporations trying to implant customers with brain chips like neuralink, I mean who knows where that technology could go if it ever gets off the ground. Personally I think the Justice system attempting to have a bit of foresight is a good thing.
This is what I mean by your logic. Do you understand the difference between fiction and reality?
Because surveillance never has been an issue /s. Did you just read the last comment and ignore the rest? One is a real problem, the other is fiction. Do you understand the difference?
Sure man, let's make a law about something we know nothing about, what could go wrong.