Skip to content

How the US is turning into a mass techno-surveillance state

Technology
66 45 242
  • How to Choose Between Flats in Gunnersbury and Wembley Park

    Technology technology
    1
    0 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    5 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • Most Common PIN Codes

    Technology technology
    50
    1
    182 Stimmen
    50 Beiträge
    318 Aufrufe
    E
    Came here for this comment. Did not disappoint!
  • 0 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    11 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • 80 Stimmen
    31 Beiträge
    158 Aufrufe
    P
    That clarifies it, thanks
  • (azazoaoz)

    Technology technology
    1
    1
    0 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    14 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • 18 Stimmen
    10 Beiträge
    55 Aufrufe
    M
    Business Insider was founded in 2007.
  • 92 Stimmen
    42 Beiträge
    149 Aufrufe
    G
    You don’t understand. The tracking and spying is the entire point of the maneuver. The ‘children are accessing porn’ thing is just a Trojan horse to justify the spying. I understand what are you saying, I simply don't consider to check if a law is applied as a Trojan horse in itself. I would agree if the EU had said to these sites "give us all the the access log, a list of your subscriber, every data you gather and a list of every IP it ever connected to your site", and even this way does not imply that with only the IP you could know who the user is without even asking the telecom company for help. So, is it a Trojan horse ? Maybe, it heavily depend on how the EU want to do it. If they just ask "show me how you try to avoid that a minor access your material", which normally is the fist step, I don't see how it could be a Trojan horse. It could become, I agree on that. As you pointed out, it’s already illegal for them to access it, and parents are legally required to prevent their children from accessing it. No, parents are not legally required to prevent it. The seller (or provider) is legally required. It is a subtle but important difference. But you don’t lock down the entire population, or institute pre-crime surveillance policies, just because some parents are not going to follow the law. True. You simply impose laws that make mandatories for the provider to check if he can sell/serve something to someone. I mean asking that the cashier of mall check if I am an adult when I buy a bottle of wine is no different than asking to Pornhub to check if the viewer is an adult. I agree that in one case is really simple and in the other is really hard (and it is becoming harder by the day). You then charge the guilty parents after the offense. Ok, it would work, but then how do you caught the offendind parents if not checking what everyone do ? Is it not simpler to try to prevent it instead ?
  • 44 Stimmen
    4 Beiträge
    32 Aufrufe
    G
    It varies based on local legislation, so in some places paying ransoms is banned but it's by no means universal. It's totally valid to be against paying ransoms wherever possible, but it's not entirely black and white in some situations. For example, what if a hospital gets ransomed? Say they serve an area not served by other facilities, and if they can't get back online quickly people will die? Sounds dramatic, but critical public services get ransomed all the time and there are undeniable real world consequences. Recovery from ransomware can cost significantly more than a ransom payment if you're not prepared. It can also take months to years to recover, especially if you're simultaneously fighting to evict a persistent (annoyed, unpaid) threat actor from your environment. For the record I don't think ransoms should be paid in most scenarios, but I do think there is some nuance to consider here.