News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:The chat control proposal does not belong in democratic s... by Spoom on Monday March 27, 2023 @10:24AM (#35327041)
> With some select authorities being exempt from this due to national security.

I fear your carveout would quickly become an "Inner Party" situation, with those with real power declaring themselves exempt due to "national security" reasons. Imagine then that anyone in any position of authority but not real power would be subject to the surveillance as an "Outer Party" member.

I get that the intent is to show the people in charge the negative consequences of such policies, but I don't think that's the worst that could come of this.

Re:The chat control proposal does not belong in democratic s... by AvAurora on Monday March 27, 2023 @10:42AM (#35327301)
You understand that there is already an inner party, not in a conspiracy sense, but in a privacy sense. Yo have to actually argue why partial transparency is way worse than full obscurity.
Re:The chat control proposal does not belong in democratic s... by rhodorhoades on Monday March 27, 2023 @10:42AM (#35327302)
That’s exactly the kind of fallacy these politicians would use to argue against this kind of thing ;)
Re:The chat control proposal does not belong in democratic s... by whythre on Monday March 27, 2023 @12:21PM (#35328613)
The idea that the powerful would find a way to circumvent or corrupt such a rule is a significant problem; it isn’t a fallacy.

Fallacy =/= thing I don’t like.