Were there a shred of consistency in actually advocating for children's quality of life, I could forgive those who are duped by these underhanded tactics. As it stands, there's no actual concerted "save the children" bandwagon that we're being invited to hop on to.
Maybe one should be created, with a prioritized list of issues, and loudly inform people that if issues at the bottom are being prioritized the proponents may have other motives than the ones they claim.
If there were a political bandwagon around ranking child death causes, I'd probably still not trust it, and I view murder differently from accidents anyway.
Clearly nobody is suggesting that on average men flock towards more dangerous higher paying professions which until recently also meant higher wages.
Wouldn't want people to make the connection between risk and reward as a factor in economics.
Plus what does this have to do with mortality in children again?
But yes, the transition between CEO and homeless is surprisingly sudden. It’s indeed a risky job.
Are you sure about that? In the US, firearm-related injuries became the leading cause of death among people aged 1 to 19.
It's got nothing to do whether the law would be actually effective at curbing such abuse, whether it will have harmful (seemingly-) unintended consequences, whether other solutions would be more effective or have less potential for unintended consequences, or whether the problem is actually widespread enough to even worry about compared to other risks that affect children.
Unfortunately this is uncomfortable for some people (understandable, it's pretty awkward to talk with a 7yo about sex), but it's what politicians should be pushing if they were really about "saving the children". Monitoring cell phones is not it.
This is how most rights get taken away, not just encryption. Also, we're talking about countries that already have pretty restricted speech. Encryption has to consistently remain popular to survive there, and there are plenty of ways to undermine that.