• henfredemars@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    95
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    So the implication is that keeping the masses in check is the primary goal and protecting the children was the incidental part?

    • fluckx@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      36
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      We do this to find criminals, drugsdealers, paedophiles and terrorists. MEPS are never part of any of those groups.

      Source: trust me bro >.>

      Rules for thee and not for me.

      • Possibly linux@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        Just remember “terrorism” is a generic term these days. Russia invaded Ukraine over “terrorism.”

        It wouldn’t shock me if they started carefully monitoring political views to detect anything the state doesn’t like.

        • Socsa
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          Don’t fall victim to language nihilism. It’s much better to say “hey buddy, that’s not terrorism, you are a fucking liar and your deliberate misuse of language disrespects the real victims of terrorism.” They want us to lose objective truth, which is why it’s so important to fight back.

    • XTL@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      Protecting children has never been an intention or an outcome with these laws.

  • MrOtherGuy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    52
    ·
    5 months ago

    Absolutely not. If anything, public officials would be the one group whose messaging I would understand being scanned so that the people can sort of keep them on check. But again, implementing such possibility that would still weaken security of everyone else as well so of course it should not actually be done.

  • ChicoSuave@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    43
    ·
    5 months ago

    The law must apply to all, including public servants. As they are beholden to the public, they are subject to review and FOIA requests are automatically granted for the content.

    Remember the rule of authoritarians: if someone wants to stop you from being suspicious, they want to stop you from doing the same things they’ve done.

    • sibachian@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      5 months ago

      The law must apply to all, including public servants. As they are beholden to the public, they are subject to review and FOIA requests are automatically granted for the content.

      Now I’m suddenly not so against this law. Journalists paradise. They’ll have a field day!

      • ExcessShiv@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        It would just result in them having official and unofficial devices, where all the things they don’t want linked to their person, political party or public knowledge is on a different device that isn’t going to get caught in the FOIA requests.

  • Veticia@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    41
    ·
    5 months ago

    How about making every message of government officials be public and saved in easily searchable database for the populace and make content of their screens be streamed 24/7? No? Why? Nothing to hide nothing to fear? Right?

    You stupid fuck.

  • macniel@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    32
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    Hahahaha… No.

    You (potentially) voted for this. You will suffer it as well!

    Also all of my and everyones correspondence is confidental, now what? We in Germany have a law (Postgeheimnis) for that as well!