this post was submitted on 04 Dec 2024
629 points (99.4% liked)

Technology

59999 readers
2107 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 45 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Yup. The Apple-FBI encryption dispute started under Obama, as did the Snowden leak.

Neither party is particularly pro-encryption, because governments in general see encryption by the public a hurdle for their operations (i.e. you don't need encryption if you have nothing to hide).

Encryption isn't a partisan issue, and my understanding is that both major parties suck about equally on this issue.

[–] surph_ninja@lemmy.world 17 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

It’s a wonder they’re not also trying to outlaw printing presses at this point. They openly believe that we are not entitled to private conversations.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 11 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

It seems we're moving that direction. Physical media in video games is becoming less and less common, more and more stores are digital only (and Google made a deal w/ Mastercard to get that data), and ebooks are likely to overtake physical books in the near-ish future.

Guess where all that data ends up? The government can just pay retailers to get transaction data, so if the police wants to dig up dirt on you, it's easier than ever.

That's pretty messed up IMO, and I'm not happy with this trend given where privacy protections are at these days...

[–] surph_ninja@lemmy.world 5 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Yep. We need a very strict law to prevent the government from partnering with private companies to get around the fourth amendment. The third party doctrine has obliterated our privacy rights.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 4 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Agreed. If there's anything we should collectively push for, it's a constitutional recognition to a right to privacy. That's what Roe v Wade was based on, and it was overturned because it wasn't constitutionally defensible. The 4th amendment sadly isn't sufficient, we need to take it a step further.

[–] futatorius@lemm.ee 5 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

The Ninth Amendment, if actually followed, would put the burden on the government to prove that something was not a right, rather than just denying it because it wasn't enumerated in the Constitution. The current Supreme Court has directly contradicted the Ninth by claiming that only enumerated rights are really rights. Except when they make up new ones like corporate personhood.

Yeah, I wish that was the case. But no, we apparently need to be explicit with the Supreme Court.

[–] Bytemeister@lemmy.world 4 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

Printing press is okay. One-time-code books are tantamount to treason!