• shortwavesurfer@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    36
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    3 months ago

    I haven’t even read the article, and I already hate it just by the title. I shall now go and read the article itself. The primary reason I hate it already is because anything with crime is generally used to take away people’s liberty.

    • slacktoid@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      16
      ·
      3 months ago

      Idk man taking away peoples liberty to discriminate against people isn’t a bad thing IMHO.

        • slacktoid@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          3 months ago

          To make distinctions on the basis of class or category without regard to individual merit, especially to show prejudice on the basis of ethnicity, gender, or a similar social factor.

          • Arkouda@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            Nope, going to need more than the American Heritage dictionary #2 definition from you on this one.

            What does it mean to discriminate? What groups of people are protected from it under law? What are the penalties for it? In your own words and using your own thoughts.

            • slacktoid@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              3 months ago

              Sounds like you just want to find the loop holes of doing a hate crime. Have a good day!

              • Arkouda@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                3 months ago

                Sounds like you have no individual thought and default to personal attacks because you lack critical thinking skills.

                I would return the pleasantry but you aren’t deserving of kind words considering the aforementioned personal attack.

                • slacktoid@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  Sure dawg. Just cause I dont like to be hate crimed I have no individual thought. Peace out dude. May you forever live in interesting times.

  • daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    3 months ago

    Just by looking at it I know for them cybercrime is ad-blocking and piracy. Meanwhile phone scams are the most common form of “”“cyber”“” crime and no one bats an eye on them.

    • Buddahriffic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      3 months ago

      The fact that the phone system hasn’t been overhauled to prevent spoofing is a sign of how little anyone actually gives a shit about helping people.

    • Venator@lemmy.nz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      3 months ago

      IANAL: It sounds like the EFF recommendation probably wouldn’t help prevent it from being used to investigate ad blocking and piracy:

      Recommendation: Restrict the definition to “core cybercrimes” like technical attacks on computers, devices, data, and communications systems. Exclude human rights-protected activities from the scope of the treaty to prevent misuse and ensure these rights are not unjustly targeted due to equating cybercrime with any crime using ICT.

      Since blocking ads and piracy aren’t likely to be directly related to human rights protected activities, and they’ll probably stretch the definition of “core cybercrimes” to include those…

    • Venator@lemmy.nz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      Not only that they’ll probably start using all sorts of surveillance data that Google and Facebook etc. have for all sort of things that people don’t expect e.g. Maybe use GPS data to issue speeding tickets…

  • e$tGyr#J2pqM8v@feddit.nl
    cake
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    3 months ago

    Slowly across the globe we move towards surveillance states, one country is further down the path than the other, but we all makes steps in the same directions. If public awareness won’t rise I don’t see us escaping this dystopian future. Still today many people argue ‘I have nothing to hide’ and don’t have any critical thought beyond this point. Are we doomed or am I being to negative?

  • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    So various cockroaches have realized that the concept of WWW threatens their monopoly on information allowing them to commit crimes, but, when neutered, makes them tenfold more powerful.

    See, in the 90s all the court decisions, cultural and political moves and other stuff in favor of freedom of speech and such in the Web and in the Internet were based on old world principles applied to a new technology. With such a combination these would ruin parts of that old world, but it was the only realistic way.

    In the 00s that part has realized that it’s going to the junkyard of history and decided to break the parts of old world which produced those principles, and make new ones for the Web and for itself.

    That’s what all these big states and corps are doing right now. I mean, I’m serious, some things can be either a war or a massacre. The latter if you ignore them. The humanity as a whole is trying to start moving back into barbarism.