Privacy

32471 readers

340 users here now

A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.

Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.

In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.

Some Rules

Posting a link to a website containing tracking isn't great, if contents of the website are behind a paywall maybe copy them into the post
Don't promote proprietary software
Try to keep things on topic
If you have a question, please try searching for previous discussions, maybe it has already been answered
Reposts are fine, but should have at least a couple of weeks in between so that the post can reach a new audience
Be nice :)

Related communities

much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

432

UK Government Drawing Up Proposals To Criminalise Dissent (www.theguardian.com)

submitted 1 year ago by leraje@lemmy.blahaj.zone to c/privacy@lemmy.ml

112 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I don't know if this is 100% strictly privacy related but I think it does fall in the sphere of protecting one's right to express oneself privately.

"Government officials have drawn up deeply controversial proposals to broaden the definition of extremism to include anyone who “undermines” the country’s institutions and its values, according to documents seen by the Observer.

The new definition, prepared by civil servants working for cabinet minister Michael Gove, is fiercely opposed by a cohort of officials who fear legitimate groups and individuals will be branded extremists.

The proposals have provoked a furious response from civil rights groups with some warning it risks “criminalising dissent”, and would significantly suppress freedom of expression."

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Nougat@kbin.social 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Your position rests entirely on the US Sedition Act being "too old" to be relevant. If pointing out the short-sightedness of ignoring history - again, your only argument - is "cherry-picking," so be it.

[–] NovaPrime@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It doesn't. Re-read my last two comments, but this time actually read them instead of just getting hung up on the time factor. I used the time reference as short hand assuming basic reading comprehension initially, but then fleshed it out over the next two comments where I discuss what that time difference implies and boils down to when you look at the totality of circumstances and societal/legal norms and technology between the two eras.

[–] Nougat@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

I disagree.