Accountability is something a government owes to the people. It is not something the individual owes to the government or the public. It is not and should not be easy for the government to invade individual privacy.
What "accountability" do you owe when I falsely declare you to be a kiddy diddler? What "accountability" do you owe when the government is the one making the false accusation against you? I ask, and I answer: you owe nothing at all.
The government, when Democratic anyway, is a reflection of the people. Quite literally the etymological root of the word. We are fortunate to live in a time where when such a western democratic government does something wrong — particularly in France — the people can demand change by way of riot or vote. By extension, such laws were drafted in representation if not direct referendum by the people. In other words, the extension of this CEO getting arrested on France soil IS the will of the people. And if the will of the people demands a degree of security and resources to inhibit crime, then so be it.
I wonder to what extent encrypted communications permitted (or would've exacerbated) the likes of the Charlie Hebdo attack in France. I'm pretty sure 99.99999% of all communications the average citizen does not need to be secured beyond the capacity of a search warrant to reveal.
You're right, it should not be easy; but it should also not be impossible when necessary.
You're locking up a member of "we the people" not because he actually committed any offense against the people, but because he provided an essential service to the people, and you don't like how some entirely hypothetical person may or may not have used that service.
You are stripping a person of their political power and authority, on the basis that a larger group of people agree with your position. That is not democracy. That is "populism". It disgusts me that so many fail to understand the difference.
Populism is two wolves and a sheep voting on dinner. Democracy is every measure taken to keep the sheep from appearing on that ballot.
No I am not locking up anybody.
A foreign national landed on the property of France, and is thus subject their laws forged in the blood of Democracy — and if you're going to enter the house of someone else, you better abide by their rules, yes? He was then arrested — not locked up in prison — in lieu of a legal warrant.
If you don't like the house rules, then don't go to France. Pretty simple.
Telegram seems to be failing in its duty to properly moderate communications on their platform that involve deeply fucked up shit, which you don't seem to care all that much about, curiously.
Telegram seems to be failing in its duty to properly moderate communications
Telegram has no such duty.
which you don't seem to care all that much about, curiously.
Oh, I'm sorry. I don't want to give you the wrong impression. I do care. I care very much. I don't want to give you the impression that I "don't seem to care", because I absolutely do: I care very deeply about ensuring everyone has the ability to freely discuss all the "deeply fucked up shit" they want to. The more "fucked up" you think that shit is, the more the individuals discussing it should be protected from you.
Your accusatory use of the word "curiously" is exactly why I care so much. Go shove your vaguely menacing commentary up your piss hole.
Telegram has no such duty.
That's for French courts to decide, not you or me. Their house; their rules.
Oh, I’m sorry. I don’t want to give you the wrong impression. I do care. I care very much. I don’t want to give you the impression that I “don’t seem to care”, because I absolutely do: I care very deeply about ensuring everyone has the ability to freely discuss all the “deeply fucked up shit” they want to. The more “fucked up” you think that shit is, the more the individuals discussing it should be protected from you.
From pedophilia to sex-trafficking, you care very deeply about protecting their rights to discuss and coordinate these things without oversight or traceability...?
... Alrighty then.
So yeah, okay, buddy — I venture a guess that you know, consciously or subconsciously, that your arguments are quickly crumbling by the accelerated rate of substituting substance with insults & deflections. Truly, a classical dead giveaway of rhetorical checkmate.
From pedophilia to sex-trafficking, you care very deeply about protecting their rights to discuss and coordinate these things without oversight or traceability...?
Yes. You're clearly not a student of Thomas Paine:
He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.
venture a guess that you know, consciously or subconsciously, that your arguments are quickly crumbling by the accelerated rate of substituting substance with insults & deflections. Truly, a classical dead giveaway of rhetorical checkmate.
I'll note that your response is not a rebuttal. Secure communication is a fundamental right, regardless of what France thinks about it.
Yes. You’re clearly not a student of Thomas Paine:
Remind me when Thomas Paine elects the leaders and writes the laws of France.
Yeah yeah yeah... And I'll even help by giving you another to add to your notebook:
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
- Benjamin Franklin
And yet, when the liberties of one are at the detriment of another's, therein lies when Government intervenes — no different than a parent settling a dispute between two children. As I said, private communication can exist: it's called speaking to an individual in a private room. The difference is that there are moments when warrants warrant an intervention or moderation thereof. So to say again, an intrusion on private conversation should not be easy, but it shouldn't be impossible when necessary either. Many Democratic nations seem to come to the same conclusion.
After all, "Secure communication is a fundamental right" isn't a fact; it is your opinion that has yet to be established, and is thus subjective if not arbitrary in scope and domain. Let's not put the cart before the horse and present a circular-reasoning fallacy whereby the premise itself has yet to be established.
Accountability is something a government owes to the people. It is not something the individual owes to the government or the public. It is not and should not be easy for the government to invade individual privacy.
What "accountability" do you owe when I falsely declare you to be a kiddy diddler? What "accountability" do you owe when the government is the one making the false accusation against you? I ask, and I answer: you owe nothing at all.
The government, when Democratic anyway, is a reflection of the people. Quite literally the etymological root of the word. We are fortunate to live in a time where when such a western democratic government does something wrong — particularly in France — the people can demand change by way of riot or vote. By extension, such laws were drafted in representation if not direct referendum by the people. In other words, the extension of this CEO getting arrested on France soil IS the will of the people. And if the will of the people demands a degree of security and resources to inhibit crime, then so be it.
I wonder to what extent encrypted communications permitted (or would've exacerbated) the likes of the Charlie Hebdo attack in France. I'm pretty sure 99.99999% of all communications the average citizen does not need to be secured beyond the capacity of a search warrant to reveal.
You're right, it should not be easy; but it should also not be impossible when necessary.
You're locking up a member of "we the people" not because he actually committed any offense against the people, but because he provided an essential service to the people, and you don't like how some entirely hypothetical person may or may not have used that service.
You are stripping a person of their political power and authority, on the basis that a larger group of people agree with your position. That is not democracy. That is "populism". It disgusts me that so many fail to understand the difference.
Populism is two wolves and a sheep voting on dinner. Democracy is every measure taken to keep the sheep from appearing on that ballot.
No I am not locking up anybody.
A foreign national landed on the property of France, and is thus subject their laws forged in the blood of Democracy — and if you're going to enter the house of someone else, you better abide by their rules, yes? He was then arrested — not locked up in prison — in lieu of a legal warrant.
If you don't like the house rules, then don't go to France. Pretty simple.
Telegram seems to be failing in its duty to properly moderate communications on their platform that involve deeply fucked up shit, which you don't seem to care all that much about, curiously.
Telegram has no such duty.
Oh, I'm sorry. I don't want to give you the wrong impression. I do care. I care very much. I don't want to give you the impression that I "don't seem to care", because I absolutely do: I care very deeply about ensuring everyone has the ability to freely discuss all the "deeply fucked up shit" they want to. The more "fucked up" you think that shit is, the more the individuals discussing it should be protected from you.
Your accusatory use of the word "curiously" is exactly why I care so much. Go shove your vaguely menacing commentary up your piss hole.
That's for French courts to decide, not you or me. Their house; their rules.
From pedophilia to sex-trafficking, you care very deeply about protecting their rights to discuss and coordinate these things without oversight or traceability...?
... Alrighty then.
So yeah, okay, buddy — I venture a guess that you know, consciously or subconsciously, that your arguments are quickly crumbling by the accelerated rate of substituting substance with insults & deflections. Truly, a classical dead giveaway of rhetorical checkmate.
Yes. You're clearly not a student of Thomas Paine:
I'll note that your response is not a rebuttal. Secure communication is a fundamental right, regardless of what France thinks about it.
Remind me when Thomas Paine elects the leaders and writes the laws of France.
Yeah yeah yeah... And I'll even help by giving you another to add to your notebook:
- Benjamin Franklin
And yet, when the liberties of one are at the detriment of another's, therein lies when Government intervenes — no different than a parent settling a dispute between two children. As I said, private communication can exist: it's called speaking to an individual in a private room. The difference is that there are moments when warrants warrant an intervention or moderation thereof. So to say again, an intrusion on private conversation should not be easy, but it shouldn't be impossible when necessary either. Many Democratic nations seem to come to the same conclusion.
After all, "Secure communication is a fundamental right" isn't a fact; it is your opinion that has yet to be established, and is thus subjective if not arbitrary in scope and domain. Let's not put the cart before the horse and present a circular-reasoning fallacy whereby the premise itself has yet to be established.