Comment by subscribed
2 days ago
I my kids' school some 30% of the kids vape. They don't drink because it's no longer a thing in this generation. Those who want to get the alcohol still get it very easily (by the means of £10 tip for the bum).
I agree with your last paragraph but the current development (for example the intentionally imprecise OSA in the UK) is NOT aimed at "protecting children" (whenever I hear someone say "think of the children" Id prefer they stopped thinking of mine all the time, creeps).
Here's the long article unpicking it in details: https://consoc.org.uk/the-online-safety-act-privacy-threats-...
> Under the cover of protecting children – a catchphrase repeated as the reason for the urgency of the legislation – the government has already conferred on itself future powers to access end-to-end encrypted messages (as soon as the technology becomes available), as well as powers to restrict what can and cannot be said on social media platforms as regards “false communication”. The categorisation debate reveals a kind of mission creep toward the spread of information, and the government’s inability to control it – rather than the actual harm information may cause.
Notice: the stated lie is "we protect the children!" but the intention of the act is to access everything everywhere.
Predictably the MPs are ramping up the pressure calling for more https://committees.parliament.uk/work/8641/social-media-misi...
And more: https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/uk-government-vpn-restrictions-onl...
And more: https://support.apple.com/en-gb/122234
And more: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/keeping-children-safe-onl...
And more! https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cp82447l84ko
AND THEN: https://cybernews.com/news/and-then-mullvads-anti-surveillan...
Do you really, honestly, hand on heart believe that it's just about "protecting the kids"?
At heart, I do believe that the politicians are well-intended. It's difficult to argue that we shouldn't try to prevent the production and dissemination of CSAM. That traffickers in CSAM are more sophisticated than ever, and encrypted communications combined with the dark web help them cover their tracks are undeniable facts.
Freedom of speech is not, and has never been absolute. For example, it's unlawful to lie about the content of food and drug products. Fraud is unlawful. We also hold people liable for defamation.
You're right that technology would allow governments to cast a broad net over communication and open the door to certain kinds of abuse. It's a completely legitimate concern.
This is where legal and constitutional protections can come into play. The ability to collect communications should be coupled with safeguards to prevent people from being prosecuted for lawful speech. To have one without the other would be a tragedy. And, yes, sometimes despots need to be dealt with through violent means (politics by other means, see Clausewitz).