Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- chat_control [2025/12/05 08:12] – ultracomfy
+++ chat_control [2025/12/05 08:33] (current) – ultracomfy
@@ Line 27: / Line 27: @@
 It should go without saying that abolishing secrecy of correspondence altogether is proportionate for pretty much nothing. The restriction of privacy being discussed is virtually limitless and comes with privacy and security concerns that are indefensible. Before all online correspondence is laid open to the government, the country should rather just shut down the internet. If the threat is as large as to make you consider abolishing privacy as we know it, shutting down the internet in your country is the better solution that does less damage.
-We are prepared for cases where people cannot be trusted with their communications. Laws give courts the power to issue wiretaps for individuals where it is believed that a wiretap is proportional. Either to prove that they have already done something bad, or in case they are about to do something bad. But, importantly, the natural restriction here is that wiretapping is always only for one individual, is not centralized and requires lengthy court proceeding. Wiretaps are expensive and done only when absolutely necessary. It's non-centralized structure makes the process intentionally slow. There are a lot of checks and balances in place before a wiretap can be issued and after it has been issued. All this means that a bad actor is //not capable// of weaponizing this system at scale. You can get one or two wiretaps in, but its non-centralized structure means you cannot ever get hundreds or even thousands of people at once. But it works fast in reverse - if fraudulent wiretaps are found, they can be terminated extremely quickly and undo or stop a lot of damage overnight.
+We are prepared for cases where people cannot be trusted with their communications. Laws give courts the power to issue wiretaps for individuals where it is believed that a wiretap is proportional. Either to prove that they have already done something bad, or in case they are about to do something bad. But, importantly, the natural restriction here is that wiretapping is always only for one individual, is not centralized and requires lengthy court proceedings. Wiretaps are expensive and done only when absolutely necessary. Its non-centralized structure makes the process intentionally slow. There are a lot of checks and balances in place before and after a wiretap is issued. All this means that a bad actor is //not capable// of weaponizing this system at scale. You can get one or two wiretaps in, but its non-centralized structure means you cannot ever get hundreds or even thousands of people at once. But, it works fast in reverse - if fraudulent wiretaps are found, they can be terminated extremely quickly and undo or stop a lot of damage overnight.
-Chat Control circumvents all that. It means that, now, everyone is centrally wiretapped by default, and is at the mercy of their government to (1) not get databreached (2) not turn hostile against its citizens (3) not use the wiretaps to profile its citizens (4) use the data to engage in discrimination or (5) get any worse ideas. Governments are powerful and can do all kinds of things to citizens it doesn't like. The people who invented secrecy of correspondence laws did it intentionally to limit the government's ability to do harm in case the government ever turns hostile. And governments do turn hostile - for many people, the government already is: Whether you're gay, trans, of a certain religion, of a certain color, for a lot of people this is very relevant when talking about the government. In some countries, things like these are illegal and will get you jailed - or burned. In some countries, criticizing the current administration may result in your getting fired from your job.
+Chat Control circumvents all that. It means that, now, everyone is centrally wiretapped by default, and is at the mercy of their government to (1) not get databreached (2) not turn hostile against its citizens (3) not use the wiretaps to profile its citizens (4) use the data to engage in discrimination or (5) get any worse ideas. Governments are powerful and can do all kinds of things to citizens it doesn't like. The people who invented secrecy of correspondence laws did it intentionally to limit the government's ability to do harm in case the government ever turns hostile. And governments do turn hostile - for many people, the government already is: Whether you're gay, trans, of a certain religion, of a certain color or criticize the government, for a lot of people this is very relevant when talking about the government. In some countries, things like these are illegal and will get you jailed - or burned. In some countries, criticizing the current administration may result in you getting fired from your job.
-Companies will probably get wedged into the data pool, regardless of how much we are promised that they will not. Companies should //not// get detailed lifestyle data of every citizen. In the worst case, your conversations might leak into private hands. A data breach, corruption, anything can happen and the public will see every chat of every person ever. A resentful ex, pissed off coworker, anyone who doesn't like you and has at least a little bit of motivation to actually do something about it could now get their hands on every secret you ever held. If you think your neighbor doesn't need to know every detail of your personal life, think again. This is so much worse.
+Additionally, companies will probably get wedged into the data pool, regardless of how much we are promised that they will totally not. Companies should //not// get detailed lifestyle data of every citizen. In the worst case, your conversations might leak into private hands. A data breach, corruption, anything can happen and the public will see every chat of every person ever. A resentful ex, pissed off coworker, anyone who doesn't like you and has at least a little bit of motivation to actually do something about it could now get their hands on every secret you ever held. If you think your neighbor doesn't need to know every detail of your personal life, think again. This is so much worse.
 In short: Child safety is a reasonable concern to be worried about, but casually flinging away all privacy is not a proportionate solution considering the inherent risks and problems that come with such a system. Proportionate solutions would be parental and public child abuse awareness campaigns, better tools for parents to monitor and moderate their children's virtual life and more funding and staffing for federal child safety institutions to properly investigate and prosecute incidents of suspected child abuse. More solutions could be support networks for both victims and perpetrators, destigmatization and various other public relations efforts to make it easier for perpetrators to admit they have a problem, seek help and/or self-report.
@@ Line 41: / Line 41: @@
 One really dumb example would be roads. Roads are dangerous, as they have cars on them. The reason we don't build walls around every piece of road, to protect children, is because the responsibility of protecting the child's safety is delegated to the parent. As the parent, it is your job to make sure that your kid won't run into traffic. I bet you can already see where I'm going to go with this.
-If you agree with this individualized approach to parenting, then it is the parent's responsibility to guarantee the child's safety online. To do that, parents are given executive control over their child's belongings and activities, and all of the tools necessary for a parent to make absolutely sure that their child online is not at risk of abuse. "Parents" are the real and true proportionate solution to child safety online. If you agree with how children are raised in western society, then parents are all we need.
+If you agree with this individualized approach to parenting, then it is the parent's responsibility to guarantee the child's safety online. To do that, parents are given executive control over their child's belongings and activities, and all of the tools necessary for a parent to make absolutely sure that their child online is not at risk of abuse. "Parents" are the real and true proportionate solution to child safety online. If you agree with how children are raised in western society, then parents are all we need (in an ideal world).
 ----
 If you want, continue reading on [[Chat Control (Level 2)]]